Dar es Salaam. The Republic in the treason case against Chadema Chairman Tundu Lissu has asked the High Court (Sub-Registry) in Dar es Salaam to dismiss his objection over the admissibility of a video containing his speech allegedly inciting treason.
In its submissions, the prosecution argued that Lissu’s claims lack legal merit and should be rejected. The case, which is being heard by a three-judge bench led by Resident Judge at the Iringa sub-registry Dunstan Ndunguru, is currently at the prosecution’s evidence stage. Judges James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde are sitting with him.
Lissu is accused of, on April 3, 2025, in Dar es Salaam, making statements intended to threaten the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, contrary to Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code. The prosecution cited social media posts in which he allegedly said:
“If this position is seen as incitement, it is true… because we say we will obstruct the elections, incite rebellion… this election we will really disrupt it… we will sabotage it badly…”
Evidence verification
The third prosecution witness, Samweli Eribariki Kaaya, 39, a forensic imaging expert from the Police Forensic Science Section, testified that on April 8, 2025, he received a flash disk and memory card containing the video from the Special Investigations Regional Office in Dar es Salaam.
He confirmed the video was authentic after examination and submitted a forensic report. The prosecution asked the court to admit it as evidence. Lissu objected, raising four main points.
Prosecution response
On Lissu’s claim that the video was never shown in the committal court, Senior Government Advocate Nassoro Katuga said the court should refer to official committal records, which clearly show the video was played and read to the accused.
Regarding the claim that the expert report should precede the video, Katuga argued there is no law requiring this. He cited CPA Sections 216(1)–220(1), adding that previous court rulings support admitting evidence based on relevance, materiality, and competency.
On the objection that the witness lacked authority, Katuga said the witness had properly examined the video, demonstrated his expertise, and was authorised. He cited DPP v Shaibu Mohamed & 6 others (Criminal Appeal No. 74/2016) as precedent.
Finally, on the chain of custody, Katuga argued that authenticity was sufficiently verified and that this issue is not one of the three main criteria for admitting evidence.
Katuga urged the court to dismiss Lissu’s objections as legally weak and a waste of time. Following the prosecution’s response, Lissu will reply before the judges make their ruling.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
