Dar es Salaam, September 2025 The treason case against CHADEMA Chairman Hon. Tundu Antipas Lissu has continued to dominate Tanzania’s political and legal discourse throughout September, drawing widespread attention both inside and outside the courtroom.
The case stems from remarks made by Lissu during a speech on May 3, 2025, in which he allegedly called for the disruption of elections. He was arrested shortly thereafter and formally charged with treason at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court in Dar es Salaam. The matter was later transferred to the High Court’s Dar es Salaam registry, where it is being heard before a three-judge panel led by Justice Nduguru. The prosecution is represented by seven state attorneys under Senior State Counsel Nassoro Katuga, while Lissu, a seasoned lawyer and politician, has opted to represent himself.
On September 8, Lissu raised preliminary objections, arguing that the charge sheet contained “incurable defects” and that the transfer of the case from Kisutu to the High Court was procedurally flawed. He cited provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and past precedents to support his claims. The prosecution countered that the charge sheet complied with the law and that any minor flaws could be corrected. On September 15, the High Court dismissed Lissu’s first objection, ruling that it had full jurisdiction to hear the case.
Further arguments between September 16 and 18 focused on the validity of police witness statements. Lissu claimed they had been improperly prepared, while the state insisted they were admissible. On September 22, the court dismissed this second objection, allowing the case to proceed.
Tensions outside the courtroom added to the drama. On September 18, police clashed with CHADEMA supporters who had gathered at the High Court, allegedly assaulting and detaining several, including lawyer Adv. Mahinyila. The incident drew sharp criticism from retired High Court Judge Robert Makaramba, who accused the police of undermining judicial independence. The following day, the Tanganyika Law Society issued a statement condemning the police and urging the government to take disciplinary measures against the Inspector General of Police and the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs.
With objections set aside, the case advanced on September 22 with the reading of charges during the preliminary hearing. Lissu accepted basic facts such as his identity, nationality and profession but firmly denied that his May 3 speech amounted to treason. In a bold move, he named 15 defense witnesses, including President Samia Suluhu Hassan, Prime Minister Kassim Majaliwa and senior CHADEMA leaders John Mnyika and John Heche. The prosecution also submitted its list of witnesses, and the court adjourned proceedings until October 6, when testimonies are set to begin.
The case has sparked sharp debate across Tanzania and beyond. Many citizens argue the proceedings are politically motivated, while civil society groups have called for the hearings to be broadcast live. Some commentators support the state’s position, insisting that Lissu’s remarks endangered national security, while international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have urged Tanzania to uphold judicial independence and fundamental freedoms.
September marked a decisive stage in the proceedings. Lissu’s objections were dismissed, the charges were read, and witness lists submitted. The month also exposed rising tensions between the state and the opposition, particularly after the police crackdown on September 18 and the legal fraternity’s protest that followed. Key moments included the September 8 and 9 hearings on defective charges, the September 15 ruling affirming court jurisdiction, the September 16–18 debates on witness statements, the September 18 police incident and TLS’s response, and the September 22 decision clearing the way for trial.
With witness testimony scheduled to begin on October 6, attention now turns to the High Court, where the trial is expected to intensify amid a growing clash between law, politics and public opinion.
