Prosecution Witness Concludes Testimony in Tundu Lissu Treason Case

Dar es Salaam – The third prosecution witness in the treason case against Chadema national chairman Tundu Lissu completed his testimony at the Dar es Salaam High Court (Magistrate’s Division) on October 23, 2025, maintaining that his written police statement was a summary and not intended to contain every detail of his evidence.

Police Inspector Samuel Eribariki Kaaya, 39, a photographic specialist attached to the Photographic Unit of the Commission for Forensic Science Investigations at Police Headquarters in Dar es Salaam, made these remarks while responding to cross-examination by the accused.

Inspector Kaaya provided evidence over six consecutive days from Wednesday, October 15 until October 23 before a three-judge bench comprising Dunstan Ndunguru, James Karayemaha, and Ferdinand Kiwonde.

Lissu faces charges of treason contrary to section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code, stemming from statements he allegedly made about preventing the 2025 General Election.

During cross-examination, Senior State Attorney Tawab Issa asked Kaaya to explain discrepancies between his court testimony and written police statement. The inspector explained that his written notes were only a summary of his work and that including every detail would transform the statement into a research report rather than evidence.

This explanation came after Lissu posed 75 questions regarding aspects of his oral testimony that did not appear in his written police statement.

Key Exchange During Cross-Examination

Lissu: "Are you aware you were asked 165 questions in court by the Republic’s lawyers?"

Witness: "I am not certain."

Lissu: "Are you aware that of those 165 questions asked by your lawyers, 112 are not contained in the statement you wrote to police?"

Witness: "I am not certain."

Lissu: "Witness, 68 per cent of the questions asked by the State counsel are not in the statement you wrote to police — true or not?"

Lissu: "Why are the answers you have given in court not included in the statement you made to police?"

Witness: "The statement I wrote to police is a summary of the work I carried out; you cannot write everything because you would be writing research."

Lissu: "Have you given a reason in court for why you did not include your in-court evidence in the police statement?"

Witness: "I have not given a reason."

Technical Evidence Questioned

During further questioning, Lissu challenged the witness on technical aspects of the case:

Lissu: "I stand accused of treason here; I am alleged to have broadcast seditious material during my meeting and uploaded it online. Tell the judges: is it possible that the person speaking and the person holding the camera recording live are the same person?"

Witness: "I do not know."

Lissu: "In a professional forensic inquiry can you determine who uploaded the video online, given that I am accused of having uploaded it?"

Witness: "When conducting a metadata investigation you examine the link that uploaded the video; therefore, I did not identify a person."

Lissu: "Tell the judges who was operating that camera on April 3, 2025 for the recording."

Witness: "I do not know and I am not familiar with that."

Lissu: "From your knowledge, is it possible for someone without a Jambo TV username, without a YouTube account or password, and who is not a Jambo TV employee, to upload the video to Jambo TV?"

Witness: "It depends. Technology has advanced; there are things called hacks which enable someone to access an account without a password."

Lissu: "Witness, I am persuaded by everything you have said, but I maintain the allegation that I uploaded the seditious material and put it on that account; I would like clarity on that."

Witness: "There is no way someone can access an account unless they have the password, or unless there is software that can break into the account without a password — people can hack accounts."

The case continues as the prosecution presents its evidence against the opposition leader.