Dar es Salaam. The first prosecution witness in the treason case against Chadema national chairperson Tundu Lissu has completed his testimony, insisting that incitement intended to threaten the government constitutes treason.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) George Bagyemu, the Deputy Zonal Crime Officer (DZCO) for the Dar es Salaam Special Zone, made the statement on Thursday, October 9, 2025 as he wrapped up four days of testimony before the High Court’s Dar es Salaam sub-registry.
ACP Bagyemu took the stand from Monday, October 6, to Thursday, October 9, before a panel of three judges led by Judge Dunstan Ndunguru of the Iringa Sub-Registry, sitting with Judges James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde.
Mr Lissu is facing a treason charge under Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code, in connection with remarks he allegedly made suggesting the prevention of the 2025 General Election.
Led by Principal State Attorney (PSA) Nassoro Katuga, the witness faced clarifying questions following two days of cross-examination by the accused.
He maintained that suspending elections through lawful means does not amount to treason, but doing so unlawfully, through intimidation or violation of the law, does.
On Thursday, ACP Bagyemu spent about 27 minutes responding to the prosecution’s clarifying questions before being released after prosecutors confirmed the conclusion of their examination.
Among the key exchanges between the State Attorney and the witness were:
Attorney: You were asked whether incitement is an act of treason, and you said yes. What did you mean?
Witness : Incitement that threatens the government amounts to treason; it is not simply the act of incitement itself.
Attorney: You were shown the charge sheet and asked whether the word “Government” appears in it. You said even if it does not, it is implied. Can you explain?
Witness: The term “Government” is implied in context. Considering the statements and their intent, they amount to rebellion. Elections are constitutional, so even if the term is missing, it remains contextually present.
Attorney: You were also asked whether preventing elections is treason. You said it depends on the method. Please clarify.
Witness: Preventing elections through legal procedures is not treason. But doing so unlawfully, through intimidation or defiance of the law, is treason.
Attorney: You were asked about who published the content online. You mentioned “P” and later both “P” and Tundu Lissu. What did you mean?
Witness: By speaking to journalists, particularly from Jambo TV, Mr Lissu intended his statements to be published online. The journalist was his conduit for dissemination.
Attorney: You were also asked whether it is an offence for an opposition party to challenge the government through lawful means. You said it is not. Please clarify.
Witness: Challenging the government through lawful means is not an offence. It only becomes one when intimidation is involved.
During Wednesday’s cross-examination, Mr Lissu questioned the witness extensively about his earlier testimony, while recounting his record in democracy and human rights advocacy.
He repeatedly asked whether the witness was aware of his background, achievements, or international recognition. ACP Bagyemu said he knew some details, was unaware of others, and denied a few outright. He added that he did not know of Mr Lissu’s activism or that he was a prominent public figure.
Following ACP Bagyemu’s conclusion, the prosecution called its second witness, Police Inspector John Kaaya, 45, from the Cybercrime Investigation Unit, who serves at the Online Patrol Desk.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
