Dar es Salaam. The High Court Sub-Registry in Dar es Salaam has barred the prosecution from introducing fresh evidence in the treason case against Chadema chairman, Tundu Lissu, after dismissing the State’s notice seeking to submit additional material.
The court struck out the notice following an objection raised by Mr Lissu, who challenged its legality.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, the panel agreed with the defence that the notice contravened Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Revised Edition 2023.
Mr Lissu faces one count of treason contrary to Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code. The charge stems from remarks allegedly aimed at obstructing the 2025 General Election.
The prosecution alleges that on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, Mr Lissu, as a Tanzanian citizen and with intent to incite the public, urged people to block the holding of the General Election. He is accused of stating and writing words pressuring the country’s top leadership, including:
“If they say this stance amounts to rebellion, it is true… because we say we will stop the election, we will mobilise rebellion… that is how change comes… we will disrupt it… we will seriously sabotage this election… we will cause serious unrest.”
The case is being heard by a panel of three judges led by Iringa High Court Principal Judge Dunstan Ndunguru, alongside Justices James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde.
Proceedings are currently at the prosecution stage, with 15 out of the 30 expected witnesses having testified.
Prosecution’s request
On February 23, 2026, the prosecution informed the court that it had filed, online on February 18, a notice under Section 308(1) of the CPA seeking to introduce additional evidence.
Senior State Attorney Nassoro Katuga told the court the State was not seeking to call a new witness, but rather to introduce further evidence through Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Amin Mahamba. He said the substance of the additional material had been attached to the notice.
Mr Katuga explained that the material had not been read during committal proceedings at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court and that the notice aimed to comply with the law, which bars reliance on evidence not read at the committal stage.
He added that the evidence related to ACP Mahamba’s role as head of the investigation team during and after the October 29, 2025 election, and that the information came to light while preparing the witness ahead of his testimony on February 16, 2026.
Lissu’s objection
In his objection, Mr Lissu argued that Section 308 applies only to witnesses whose statements were not read during committal proceedings, not to fresh evidence from a witness whose testimony had already been presented.
He told the court that ACP Mahamba’s statement had been read during committal and that he appeared on the witness list as witness number 26.
“So how can additional statements now be introduced when his evidence was already read? Is this notice lawful?” he asked.
Mr Lissu further contended that the prosecution was effectively attempting to alter the charge sheet by introducing new election-related matters through the same witness.
“If they want to amend the case, they should follow Section 213, not come in through the back door,” he argued, urging the court to strike out the notice.
Court’s ruling
In its decision, the court held that Section 308 permits only the introduction of evidence that existed at the time of committal but was not read.
Judge Ndunguru ruled that the law does not allow the introduction of evidence obtained after the committal stage.
“This notice seeks to introduce evidence obtained after the committal proceedings, after the election. Clearly, such evidence did not exist at the time,” he said.
The court concluded that the notice contravened Section 308 and could not stand.
“Our view is that the provision does not allow this. The only remedy is to strike out the notice,” the judge ruled.
After the ruling
Following the decision, lead prosecutor and Principal State Attorney Lenatus Mkude requested a one-hour adjournment to study the ruling before proceeding.
Mr Lissu opposed the request, insisting that the hearing continue as scheduled.
After clarification that the prosecution merely required time to prepare its witness rather than adjourn the case entirely, the court granted a 50-minute break.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
