Court rejects video authenticity report in Lissu treason case

However, Mr Lissu objected, arguing that the witness lacked legal authority to prepare or present the report in court, as he was not a certified cybercrime expert.

The prosecution opposed the objection, claiming it lacked a legal basis. However, the court, in a ruling delivered on Thursday, October 23, 2025, agreed with Mr Lissu and rejected the report.

In Criminal Case No. 19605 of 2025, Mr Lissu faces a treason charge for allegedly uttering words threatening the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, contrary to section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code.

He is accused of having, on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, made statements threatening the government and expressing that intent by publishing them on social media, saying:

“If they say this position indicates rebellion, it’s true... because we are saying we’ll stop the election, we’ll mobilise rebellion. That’s how you bring change... so we are going to cause chaos... We’ll really disrupt this election... We’ll make it very messy.”

The case is being heard by a three-judge panel led by the Resident Judge of the Iringa High Court Sub-Registry, Justice Dunstan Ndunguru, sitting with Justices James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde.

The court is currently hearing the prosecution’s evidence, now at its third witness.

The third witness, Police Inspector Samweli Eribariki Kaaya (39), a photography expert from the Forensic Science Investigation Commission at Police Headquarters in Dar es Salaam, told the court that on April 8, 2025, he received a flash disk and a memory card containing the video from the Office of the Regional Crime Officer, Dar es Salaam, for verification.

He said his forensic analysis established that the video was genuine and had not been tampered with, after which he prepared a report on his findings.

On October 17, 2025, he asked the court to admit the flash disk and memory card as exhibits.

Mr Lissu objected, and in a ruling on Wednesday, the court agreed, rejecting the two data storage devices.

Following that decision, the prosecution requested the court to admit the authenticity report prepared by the same witness, but Mr Lissu objected again.

Mr Lissu argued that, according to the witness’s own testimony, he was a still-photography expert under section 202(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Revised Edition 2022, now section 216(1) following the 2023 revision, which applies to certificates submitted by still-photography experts, not reports.

He explained that a report is prepared and issued by a cybercrime or digital forensics expert, and that a video clip does not fall under the definition of a still photograph.

“My Lords, the ink has barely dried since your ruling rejecting the exhibits, where you clearly stated that this witness is an expert in still photography, not video,” Mr Lissu submitted.

He also noted that the witness told the court he was appointed and gazetted through Government Notice No. 799 of 2020, issued by the Attorney General (AG), not the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as required by law.

Mr Lissu argued that since the appointment came from the AG instead of the DPP, the witness was not legally authorised to prepare or submit the report.

“One item having been rejected, another that depends on it cannot stand on its own. Its admissibility is contingent on the admission of what it analyses, the flash disk and memory card already rejected by the court,” said Mr Lissu.

He stressed that the report did not comply with section 216 and, therefore, could not be submitted or accepted by the court.

For his part, Principal State Attorney Job Mrema asked the court to dismiss all of Mr Lissu’s objections and admit the witness’s report, arguing that it was distinct from the rejected exhibits.

Mr Mrema said the witness had the necessary qualifications to present the document in court, adding that the report should be treated as independent evidence.

Court’s ruling

In a ruling delivered by Justice Karayemaha, the court agreed with Mr Lissu that the witness lacked authority to prepare or submit the report because he was an expert in still photography, not video analysis.

“The witness was appointed to handle still images and, therefore, should have prepared a certificate, not a report,” said Justice Karayemaha.

He added that the law was clear, and the court would not contravene it. Even if the flash disk and memory card had been admitted, the report, if prepared as a certificate, would still have no relevance.

“Therefore, we find that this witness is not competent to submit a report, only a certificate under section 216(1) of the CPA. We are satisfied that the accused’s objection has merit, and we shall not admit the report,” Justice Karayemaha ruled