Dar es Salaam. The High Court yesterday ruled in favour of opposition leader Tundu Lissu in his objection to the admission of video evidence presented by the prosecution in his ongoing treason case.
The video, contained in a flash drive and memory card, allegedly shows Mr Lissu making statements deemed seditious during a meeting with aspirants for various positions ahead of the 2025 General Election.
The three-judge panel—comprising presiding judge Dunstan Ndunguru, sitting with judges James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde—agreed with one of the four grounds raised by Mr Lissu, ruling that the prosecution witness who sought to submit the exhibits lacked legal authority to do so.
“The court finds that the witness did not have the legal competence to tender such video evidence,” Judge Ndunguru said when delivering the decision yesterday.
Mr Lissu, the national chairperson of the opposition party Chadema, faces a charge of treason under Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code.
He is accused of uttering statements threatening the government of the United Republic of Tanzania and posting them on social media.
Prosecutors allege that on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, Mr Lissu said: “If they say this position signals rebellion, it’s true… because we are saying we will stop the election, we will mobilise resistance… we are going to disrupt this election badly.”
The case No. 19605 of 2025, is currently hearing prosecution witnesses.
The disputed witness, Police Inspector Samweli Eribariki Kaaya, a 39-year-old forensic image analyst with the Criminal Forensic Science Division, testified that he received the flash drive and memory card from the Dar es Salaam Special Zone Investigation Office on April 8, 2025, for verification.
He told the court he examined the materials and confirmed that the video was authentic and had not been tampered with. On October 17, he asked the court to admit the video files as prosecution exhibits.
However, Mr Lissu objected, arguing that Inspector Kaaya was not legally qualified to submit the digital materials. Citing Section 216(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA, Revised 2023), he said the witness had not been appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or gazetted as an expert on moving images.
He further argued that the witness was recognised only as an expert in still photography, not video analysis, and therefore lacked the mandate to present such evidence.
The prosecution, led by Principal State Attorney Nassoro Katuga, countered that the witness was competent and cited previous Court of Appeal rulings, but the judges disagreed.
“The Gazette Notice No. 745 of 2022 appoints the witness as an expert in still photographs, not video footage,” said Judge Ndunguru. “This court finds that a moving image expert would have been the proper person to tender such exhibits.”
The court therefore rejected the video materials as evidence for the prosecution.
Following the ruling, Inspector Kaaya sought to submit his forensic report on the video analysis, but Mr Lissu again objected, arguing that the same competence issue applied.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the case until today for a ruling on whether or not to admit the report, before proceeding with the witness’s testimony.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
