Lissu ready to discuss October 29 events, questions Republic’s preparedness

The dispute centres on a notice filed by the Republic requesting the addition of new evidence linked to the investigation of the October 29, 2025 General Election.

However, Mr Lissu opposed the move, describing it as illegal and likely to create “a chain of problems.”

Mr Lissu faces one charge of treason under Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code, allegedly for statements intended to prevent the 2025 General Election.

He is accused of, on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, persuading the public to block the vote and pressuring the Head of State with words such as:

"If they say this stand indicates rebellion, it is true… we will prevent the election… mobilise rebellion… make it explode… especially this election… we are going to disrupt it truly… we will make it explode very badly."

The case is being heard at the High Court, Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry, by a three-judge panel led by Iringa High Court Judge in Charge Dunstan Ndunguru, with Judges James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde.

On Monday, February 23, 2026, the prosecution explained that it had submitted a notice via the internet on February 18 to add evidence.

State Attorney Nassoro Katuga cited Section 308(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Revised Edition 2023, saying the notice does not seek a new witness but additional evidence from Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Amin Mahamba, attached to the notice.

"That evidence was not read during the committal proceedings at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court," said State Attorney Katuga, adding that ACP Mahamba led the investigation team before and after the October 29 election.

The prosecution identified the evidence while preparing ACP Mahamba for testimony on February 16, 2026.

Following the outline of the notice, Mr Lissu was given an opportunity to object formally.

Lissu’s objections

Mr Lissu argued that Section 308(1) refers to witnesses whose statements were not read in committal proceedings, not additional evidence for a witness whose statement had already been read.

He noted ACP Mahamba was listed as the 26th witness on page 134 of the committal record.

"How does the addition of this statement enter when it was already read? Is this notice valid?" he asked.

He claimed the Republic is attempting to alter the charge sheet by adding election-related statements, which Section 308 does not allow.

"If they want to change, they should go to Section 213," he said, calling the notice a backdoor manoeuvre that should be rejected.

Mr Lissu warned that accepting the notice could spark controversy, noting that the evidence concerns the October election, during which he alleged multiple deaths occurred.

"Honourable judges, if you open that door, we will talk about genocide and ask who killed. If you accept this notice, I am ready to continue, and the world will know," he said.

Prosecution response

Attorney Katuga maintained the notice is valid under Section 308, which ensures the accused fully understands the evidence he will face, complementing Section 263 (formerly 242) CPA.

He said the court should accept the evidence to prevent the accused from claiming surprise during the hearing.

"Our duty is to request the court, and the court decides. It should not fear receiving the notice because of the accused’s claims," said State Attorney Katuga said, urging the court to dismiss Mr Lissu’s objection.

Lissu’s rebuttal

Mr Lissu insisted that Section 308 allows only statements from a new witness, noting that adding evidence from ACP Mahamba, whose testimony was already read, effectively alters the charge sheet.

He highlighted that the disputed statements concern events before and after the election, not April 3, 2025, the date of the alleged offence.

"Honourable judges, the events of October 2025 are complex, chaotic, and involve mass killings. They are not relevant here. I ask the court not to accept this notice. However, if they want to discuss October, I am ready. Can they handle it?" he asked.

After hearing both sides, the court adjourned the case until today (Tuesday, February 24) for a ruling.