Dar es Salaam — Tundu Lissu’s final submission in his High Court treason trial will continue on Thursday after he argued that the indictment does not adequately identify the people or part of government whom he is alleged to have incited the public to threaten.
Addressing the three-judge panel on Wednesday, Lissu said a stated purpose of preventing an election was not an objective recognised by the relevant criminal law. He argued that, on that basis, he had been charged with conduct that was not an offence in law.
He then turned to what he described as the third defect in the formal indictment, known legally as the information. Lissu said the prosecution alleges that he incited people to threaten the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, but had failed to give particulars of the government entity or officials said to have been threatened.
“Who exactly did I threaten?” Lissu asked during his submission. “Was it the President, the Prime Minister, the Vice-President, the police, or whom? Which village executive officer did I threaten?”
Lissu referred the court to constitutional provisions which, he argued, show that government has a broad meaning. He said the term encompasses the Union government, the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar, local government authorities, security organs and people exercising governmental functions.
READ MORE: Tundu Lissu Closes Defence After Saying DCI Kingai Will Not Testify
On that interpretation, he submitted, the prosecution was required to specify the alleged target, from the President to a village executive officer, so that he could properly prepare his defence. Lissu told the court: “They had to tell me which government was threatened.”
Lissu invoked the Isdory Patrice decision in support of his argument that an accused person must be given sufficient particulars to prepare a defence.
He also referred to the High Court decision in Freeman Mbowe’s case, while acknowledging that it did not bind the present panel. He said the decision nevertheless stressed the need for particulars to protect the rights of an accused person.
He contrasted the wording he attributed to the treason provision, which refers to inciting a person or group of persons, with the allegation in the information concerning the public. Lissu argued that the difference added to the difficulty of understanding precisely what case he had to answer.
The court did not rule on the arguments on Wednesday. Lissu said he would turn to the evidence presented on the issue when the hearing resumed.
READ MORE: Court Blocks Bid to Re-question Heche as Lissu Eyes DCI Testimony Friday
The prosecution agreed that proceedings should continue on Thursday, but asked Lissu to bear in mind the two days remaining in the timetable for the case. Lissu replied that the time available was a matter for the court as well as for him, stressing the seriousness of the charge.
“This is a case carrying the death penalty,” Lissu reminded the prosecution. “I must defend myself with all I have.”
The panel adjourned the matter until Thursday, September 24, at 9 a.m. It also reminded those in attendance to maintain order and avoid excessive applause while court business was under way.
The hearing is at the final-submissions stage, after the court on September 18 declared the defence case closed. Lissu and the prosecution are expected to make their concluding legal arguments before the judges retire to consider their decision.
