Dar es Salaam. The High Court’s Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry will on Friday rule on whether opposition Chadema chairman Tundu Lissu has a case to answer in the treason trial against him, after the prosecution closed its case yesterday after calling 17 of the 30 witnesses it had listed.
Mr Lissu is facing one count of treason, arising from statements he allegedly made in connection with efforts to stop the 2025 General Election from taking place.
The prosecution alleges that on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, Mr Lissu incited the public to prevent the election by making and publishing statements urging the country’s leadership to stop the polls.
The trial is being heard by a three-judge panel comprising Justices Dunstan Ndunguru, James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde.
Senior State Attorney Ajuaye Nzegeli told the court yesterday that after reviewing the evidence already presented and that of the remaining witnesses, the prosecution had concluded that its case was complete.
“We wish to inform the court that the prosecution is closing its case with 17 witnesses,” Mr Nzegeli said.
The court then invited both sides to make submissions on whether Mr Lissu had a case to answer.
Lissu challenges prosecution case
In his submissions, Mr Lissu told the court that the East African Court of Appeal had established the principles that must be satisfied before an accused person can be required to answer a treason charge.
He referred to the cases of Grey Likungu Mataka and others v Republic and Hatibu Gandhi and others v Republic, arguing that three conditions had been established: that the accused owes allegiance to the United Republic, had an intention to commit treason, and that such intention must be demonstrated through written material or overt acts.
Mr Lissu argued that mere words, without conduct amounting to treason, could not constitute the offence.
On allegiance, he said there was no dispute because he was a Tanzanian citizen.
However, he argued that the statements attributed to him about disrupting the election did not amount to any of the offences listed under the provision of the Penal Code under which he was charged, nor under the 2025 Presidential, Parliamentary and Councillors’ Elections Act or any other law in Tanzania.
He said his statements did not refer to the Government, Parliament, the courts, the President, Prime Minister or a regional commissioner.
Mr Lissu also argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that he was responsible for publishing the statements on Jambo TV’s YouTube channel.
He said the video had not been produced in court and that the 17th prosecution witness, who claimed to attend the meeting where he spoke, testified that he and five others recorded and published the video.
“Therefore, the intention to commit treason, as established in the Grey and Gandhi cases, has not been demonstrated,” Mr Lissu said.
He further argued that there was no evidence that he intended to commit any offence recognised under Tanzanian laws.
Mr Lissu told the court that he had been in custody for 496 days over an act that, in his view, did not constitute treason or any other offence under Tanzanian laws.
He asked the court to order compensation for what he described as wrongful detention.
Prosecution defends charges
Responding to the submissions, Senior State Attorney Nassoro Katuga said the prosecution had established all the essential elements of treason through the evidence presented and that Lissu should therefore be required to defend himself.
“We submit that the accused has a case to answer on the charges brought against him,” Mr Katuga said.
Analysing the charge sheet, he said the first element concerned Lissu’s allegiance to Tanzania, arguing that as a Tanzanian citizen he was obliged to obey the laws of the United Republic.
On the second element, concerning intention to commit treason, Mr Katuga said Lissu’s alleged statements about disrupting and causing chaos during the election were intended to incite the public and threaten the government.
He said this had been supported by the evidence of the first, third and 16th prosecution witnesses, who testified that the statements about disrupting the election amounted to a threat against the government because the government had a duty to enforce the law.
Mr Katuga argued that the prosecution did not need to prove that the government had actually been intimidated, saying the demonstration of an intention to threaten it was sufficient to constitute treason under the relevant provision.
“We ask the court to consider the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and find that the accused has a case to answer. He should therefore be brought before the court to defend himself,” he said.
On Mr Lissu’s request for compensation, Mr Katuga said the prosecution would not respond to the issue at this stage and would address it if the court ultimately found that the accused had a case to answer.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Ndunguru said the panel needed time to review the extensive evidence and arguments presented during the trial.
The court set August 21, 2026 as the date for its ruling on whether Lissu has a case to answer.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
