High Court to rule on Lissu’s challenge in treason case

Mr Katuga argued that if there were any defects in the indictment, the accused should have identified them explicitly, which he did not, and therefore lacks grounds to challenge it.

Mr Lissu is charged with treason under Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code, relating to statements he allegedly made to obstruct the 2025 General Election.

It is alleged that on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, as a Tanzanian citizen, Mr Lissu incited the public to prevent the election.

He is also accused of making statements pressuring the Head of State, including remarks such as: "They say this stance indicates rebellion that is true… because we say we will prevent the election, we will encourage rebellion, that is how change comes… therefore we will act accordingly… this election we will truly disrupt… we will disturb it very badly…"

The case is being heard by a three-judge panel: Dunstan Ndunguru (presiding), James Karayemaha, and Ferdinand Kiwonde.

Prosecution’s response

Responding to the objection, Advocate Katuga argued that the indictment is valid as it was prepared under Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which does not allow objections at the preliminary hearing stage.

He explained that Section 138(a)(1) requires an indictment to begin with a description of the offence, 138(a)(2) mandates it be written in plain language to avoid technical terms, and 138(a)(3) requires it to state who committed the offence, when, where, and how, all of which are included in the indictment.

Regarding Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code, amended in 2022, under which Mr Lissu is charged, Advocate Katuga said it specifies the elements that constitute treason.

“Honourable judges, through Section 39, you will see the elements beyond what I have listed,” he said.

Advocate Katuga further explained that even a person outside the country can create or incite intent, persuade, or advise individuals or groups to commit acts that threaten Parliament or the High Court of the United Republic of Tanzania.

He argued that the accused demonstrates such intent by publishing writings or through any other means, and if proven, commits treason, which carries the death penalty.

“Based on the words used, the section under which the accused is charged lists 13 offences, but he claims only 10 exist,” said advocate Katuga.

He also stressed that the indictment identifies the accused by name, showing that as a resident of Kinondoni and a citizen of Tanzania, he incited the alleged acts, while other statements illustrate intent to incite the public to prevent the 2025 election.

Advocate Katuga noted that proving treasonous intent involves two aspects: publishing materials or depicting the intent, and direct acts confirming the offence.

He argued that Mr Lissu’s statements were aimed at intimidating the Government, and nowhere in the indictment does it claim he obstructed the election.

If the accused had listened carefully while it was read, he would have understood this point.

Regarding the defence’s argument that preventing an election is not treason, Mr Katuga responded that the accused is charged with creating intent, demonstrated through publishing materials intended to intimidate the Government.

Regarding Mr Lissu’s claim that the President, Vice President, or Prime Minister is not mentioned in the indictment, Mr Katuga said that whether officials are named or not is an evidential matter to be confirmed by the court once the prosecution presents its evidence.

Differences between Kisutu and High Court indictments

On the difference between the indictment read in Kisutu Court and the High Court, Advocate Katuga explained that the Kisutu indictment was preliminary under Section 262(1) of the CPA, identifying the proposed treason offence.

He clarified that amendments to indictments are legally permitted under Sections 251 and 254 of the CPA, and the court has no discretion to prevent such corrections.

Advocate Katuga added that the Kisutu Court had the authority to read witness statements and exhibits to the accused but could not amend the indictment.

“Section 262(6) CPA states that once the DPP confirms sufficient evidence, they will prepare the indictment and submit it to the High Court with witness statements and relevant documents. This applies to cases in the High Court,” said Advocate Katuga.

He further explained that once the High Court indictment is prepared, it is reduced during committal proceedings under Section 263 CPA.

Advocate Katuga concluded that the indictment read with witness statements and exhibits is the one registered in the High Court and is subject to amendments under Section 263 CPA.

The case has been adjourned until Monday, September 22, 2025, when the court is expected to rule on Mr Lissu’s objection.