Mwenyekiti wa Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA) Taifa Tundu Lissu leo, Alhamisi Septemba 24.2026 anaendelea kuwasilisha 'Final Submission' zake Mahakamani katika kesi ya uhaini inayomkabili, zoezi aliloanza nalo hapo jana
LISSU ambaye anajitetetea mwenyewe kwenye kesi hiyo, inayosikilizwa 'mfululizo' kwenye Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania, Masjala Ndogo ya Dar es Salaam mbele ya jopo la Majaji watatu (3) wakiongozwa na Jaji Dastan Ndunguru, endapo atakamilisha zoezi hilo mapema, basi upande wa Serikali (Jamhuri) nao watafanya zoezi hilo wakitumia muda uliosalia kuelekea kesho, ambapo kwa mujibu wa ratiba iliyopangwa na Mahakama ndio itakuwa siku ya mwisho ya usikilizwaji wa kesi hiyo,
Ikumbukwe kuwa, hatua hii ya pande zote mbili (3) yaani upande wa Mashtaka (Serikali/Jamhuri) na ule wa mshtakiwa Tundu Lissu kuwasilisha 'Final Submission' inakuja kufuatia pande zote kukamilisha kutoa ushahidi wake, ambapo Jamhuri ilifunga ushahidi wake baada ya kuwaleta Mahakamani mashahidi 17, wakati upande wa utetezi uliwaleta Mahakamani mashahidi watano (5) wakiongozwa na mshtakiwa mwenyewe.
Baada ya usikilizwaji wa kesi hiyo kumaliza, hatua itakayokuwa inasubiriwa na pande zote mbili (2) na wadau wengine wa ndani na nje ya Nchi wanaofuatilia kwa karibu KESI hiyo ni kuona uamuzi utakaotolewa na Mahakama.
====
LIVE UPDATES | MATUKIO KUTOKA MAHAKAMANI - Sept. 24, 2026
Viongozi mbalimbali wa CHADEMA wakiongozwa na Katibu Mkuu, John Mnyika tayari wapo ndani ya chumba cha Mahakama Kuu, kufuatilia kesi ya Tundu Lissu ambaye ameiambia Mahakama wanaostahili kunyongwa wapo mtaani waliouwa ndugu zetu Tarehe 29.10.2025.
Mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Pwani, Boniface Jacob amewasili Mahakamani
TUNDU LISSU AWASILI MAHAKAMANI KUKAMILISHA MAJUMUISHO, KESI YA UHAINI INAYOMKABILI
Mahakama imeanza, kaa tayari kwa ajili ya kukujuza nini kinaendelea kwenye majumuisho ya leo ambapo Septemba 34, 2026 tuliishia Sehemu ya 446 na leo tubaendelea na;
Sehemu ya 447
Majaji wameingia Mahakamani na Mhe. Tundu Lissu nae ameingia Mahakamani na kupokewa kwa makofi mengi hapa.
Amepiga kinyaturu na ndugu zake waliopo hapa Mahakamani, amesema NINA KWETU NA NILIAGA VIZURI.
Anasimama Ajuaye na kuwataja wenzake anaoshirikiana nao na kusema wako tayari kuendelea.
Majaji wanateta kidogo pale juu kidogo na kumuuliza Mshitakiwa kama yuko tayari. Mh. Lissu nae anajibu niko tayari Waheshimiwa majaji akiwa amekaa na anaandika andika pale kizimbani.
Jaji Ndunguru tuendeleee sasa.
Mhe. Lissu anaanza.
Waheshimiwa Majaji nikumbushwe nilipoishia.
Uliishia pale kwenye kesi ya Mbowe.
Sasa Wahehsimiwa Majaji naomba kabla sijasema kuhusu ushahidi naomba niseme kitu muhimu ambacho Mahakama hii ilisema kwenye kesi ya Freeman Aikael Mbowe.
Madhara ya kutofafanua essential elements ambazo zimetajwa kwenye sheria wakati unaandaa hati ya Mashitaka. Ni muhimu hiki nitakachokisoma kiingie kwenye rekodi sawasawa.
Kama nilivyosema Mahakama Hii ilikuwa inajadili kushindwa kwa upande wa Mashitaka ku disclose essential particulars za lawful authority kwamba maana yake ni nini hizo mamlaka halali.
Ukurasa wa 53 wa Hukumu kwenye hiyo kesi ya Freeman Aikael Mbowe ilisema statute must give fair notice or warning to those subject to them. They must guard against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and they must not unreasonably guard people .....
Zilinde watu dhidi ya matumizi holela mamlaka ndio sheri zinapaswa kufanya kazi hiyo.
Muhimu zaidi Mahakama hii ilisema yafuatayo; Such statute must be intepreted strictly under the overbread doctrine. Lazima zitafsiriwe kwa umakini mkubwa ili kulinda haki za watu.
Over bread dotrine if the statute is broadly written that it deter free speech then it can be strucked out on its face because of its chill effect. Even if it also prohibit acts that may legitimately be forbidden.
Kama sheria imeandikwa haina limit na inanyima watu haki yao ya kusema Hii Doctrine inasema Mahakama inaweza kuifuta.
Hii overbread maana yake iko kwenye Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition.
Mahakama hii kwenye kesi ya Freeman Mbowe ilimalizia kwa kucite Isdory Patrice kwa kusema maneno yafuatayo ukurasa wa 58. The failure to name lawful authority targeted by the utterances prejudiced the first accused in his defence and denies the Court an objective criterion upon which it can evaluate if the the words in question were calculated to achieve the act of conduct said to seditions. In view of the aforesaid the charge was defective.
Nairudia tena. Anarudia tena kusoma Mahakama Kuu ilichosema kwenye kesi ya Mbowe kama ilivyo hapo juu.
Kwa kifupi.. Hati ya Mashitaka inayosema alichochea umma. Umma ni watu wote wa Tanzania Bara, wageni wasio wageni, watoto wachanga. Kila mtu aliyepo Tanzania bara ni umma. Hayo maneno yasipofafanuliwa hakuna namna ya kujitetea. Kwahiyo Mtuhumiwa hawezi kujitetea.
Leo unaambiwa wa Mtwara, kesho kutwa wa Nanyumbu ndo maana Mahakama inasema lazima yafafanuliwe na yasipofafanuliwa hati ya mashitaka ni batili.
Maneno yaliyopo kwenye hati ya mashitaka kwenye shitaka langu imeingiza neno umma halipo kwenye sheria na pili halijalifafanua. Kwasababu hiyo ni hati ya mashitaka batili.
Waheshimiwa Majaji baada ya kusema hivyo nijibu swali nililoliacha jana. Je ushahidi unasemaje?
Ukiachana na kuwa legally defective je ushahidi nao pia unasema nini?
Sehemu ya 448
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Hapa Nazungumzia ushahidi unaohusu nia ya kuchochea umma iliyoletwa na hawa walionishitaki.
Nia ya kuchochea umma kuzuia Uchaguzi mkuu wa mwaka jana kwanza nilishasema nia yenyewe haipo kisheria hiyo ya kuzuia uchaguzi nitaelezea baadae.
Sasa jambo la kwanza.
Katika mashahidi 17 wa Mashitaka waliokuja kutoa ushahidi ni mashahidi wanne tu ambao walitoa ushahidi kuhusiana na suala hili.
Mashahidi hao ni PW1 George Bagyemu; PW2 John Kaaya, PW16 Amin Mahambana PW 17 aliyepewa jina la gizani la P.
Hao ndio walitoa ushahidi juu ya nia ya kuchochea umma kuzuia uchaguzi mkuu.
Jambo la Pili.
Watatu kati ya hao mashahidi wanne ni Mapolisi, mmoja tu PW17 ndio hakuwa polisi.
Jambo la tatu.
Watatu kati ya hao wanne hawakuwepo kwenye huo Mkutano, hakuhudhuria na mmoja tu PW 17 ndio alikuwepo kwenye Mkutano.
PW 17 ni shahidi pekee ambae ni eye witness katika mashahidi wote 17 aliyeona na kusikia yaliyotokea kwenye Mkutano. Wengine wote sio eye witnesses, wameona mitandaoni.
Hayo mambo matatu ni muhimu kama nitakavyoonesha shortly.
Huyo PW 17 sio tu aliona na kusikia ndo aliyerusha Matangazo. For now it suffices to say PW 17 ni mwandishi wa habari aliyesema kuwa alirusha matangazo kwenye mtandao wa Jambo TV.
Waheshimiwa Majaji kesi ya Upande wa Mashitaka imejengwa kwenye nini?
Kesi yao imejengwa kwenye ushahidi wa PW 1, PW 2 na PW 16. Hao Mapolisi ambao hawakuwepo kwenye mkutano. The theory of the case is built on their Evidence, what is this theory of the case.?
Dhana ya kesi hii ni kwamba Mimi mshitakiwa nilichochea umma kwa kuzungumza maneno yale yapo kwenye hati ya mashitaka kwa lengo la kuitishia Serikali kwasababu moja tu. Serikali ndio inasimamia Sheria za nchi na kwasababu Uchaguzi upo kwa mujibu wa sheria basi niliitishia serikali.
Hiyo ndio dhana yao. That is their theory. Ukiuvuruga Uchaguzi unakuwa umeitishia serikali. That is entire basis of this case.
Hiyo nadharia imetokana na ushahidi wa hawa Mapolisi watatu.
Tuanze na PW 1 George Bagyemu Waheshimiwa Majaji PW 1 ndie aliyepewa taarifa kwamba kuna video ina maneno ya kijinai na alipewa taarifa na PW 2. Tar. 04/04 siku moja baada ya ule mkutano.
Kwenye ushahidi wake PW1 alisema nini juu ya nia ya kuichochea serikali. Ukurasa 146 wa rekodi. Anazungumzia kilichomfanya aamini kuna nia ya uhaini.
The factors which led me to conclude it was a treason offence is
"The accused words that atahamasisha uasi, atavuruga sana, atazuia uchaguzi, atakinukisha sana sana, atakinukisha vibaya sana"
Hicho ndio kilimfanya askari Polisi George Bagyemu kusema ule ni uhaini.
Kwa maoni yake akasema pia These words were communicated with the intention of threatening the Executive.
Akaendelea kusema I say so because the election is held as per constitution and the law.
Akaendelea kusema The Executive Enforces the Law. He intimidated the Executive for the purpose of violating the Law which it enforces.
Kesi yote ipo hapo.
Mtakumbuka kwamba PW 1 was subjected to weathering cross Examination.
Kwenye Cross Examination PW 1 alisema kwamba sio kusema alikiri kwamba kwenye hayo maneno hakuna neno SERIKALI wala hakuna Serikali ya JMT, Wala Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar, Hakuna Rais wa JMT Samia, wala Makamu wa Rais, Isdory Mpango, wala Mkuu wa Mkoa Chalamila na zaidi ya hayo hakuna maneno Halmashauri ya Jiji Dar es salaam Temeke au Ubungo.
Na kwa maneno yake alisema no desgnation of any Executive leader mentioned by the treason words kwahiyo hiyo serikali wanayosema ilitishiwa hiyo Serikali yenyewe haipo na viongozi hawapo.
PW 1 licha kusema Serikali haipo lakini alisisitiza words to EXECUTIVE was intended to be intimidated.
Alisema yafuatayo kwenye ukurasa wa 166 wa record when a person says kukinukisha sana he commits Treason.
Sehemu ya 449
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Anasema Shahidi huyo akaendelea kusema the words kukinukisha sanasana, vibaya sana are not provided in section 39(2)(d) of Penal Code lakini uchaguzi unasimamiwa na Sheria kwahiyo ni kosa.
Amekubali maneno hayo hayapo kwenye kifungu kinachotengeneza kosa la Uhaini na ukiyasema tu umefanya kosa la Uhaini.
Huo ndio ushahidi mnaoshawishiwa mtoe hukumu ya Kunyongwa? Huo ndio ushahidi wa Uhaini.? Ushahidi wa kunyonga mtu. hawana hata aibu.
Jaji sasa mshitakiwa huko usiende sana
Mhe. Lissu anajibu Perfectly ligitimately mimi kuumizwa na maneno haya kwamba nimekaa ndani kwa mambo haya. Acha niseme.
Anaendelea.
The evidence on record suggest once PW 1 complained ghat words was treasonous kila mtu hadi mawakili wa serikali akili zao zikawekwa mfukoni na wakaamini kila kitu kuwa yale maneno ni uhaini. Hawakuwahi kufikiria vinginevyo.
Alipoamua kuwa huu ni Uhaini hakuna kitu chochote ambacho kingebadili mawazo yake.
Mfano unamuhusu alipoulizwa PW 17 aliyekuwa shahidi wa kuona na kusikia wala hakuona tatizo lolote la kihaini wala kikosaji huyu PW 1 alisema yafuatayo;
Ukurasa wa 169 alisema hivi it is true that in his statement P ndio PW 17 said you were discussing challenges facing you in your constituency he were also said you were airing up your police of no refomrs no election. I read his statement and decided to open up the treason case. It was me who ordered the open up of the file of treason case.
Ni kweli P alisema mlikuwa mnajadili sera yenu ya no reforms nimesoma maelezo yake na nikaamua kufungua kesi ya Uhaini. Ni mimi ndie niliyeamua kufungua file la Uhaini baada ya kupitia ushahidi wote. Kielelezo D16 ndio maelezo ya PW 17. Hayo maelezo hayajasema kulikuwa na kosa lolote.
Huyu Polisi amesoma maelezo ya shahidi wake na kwa vile alishaamua kuwa ni uhaini huu akasema fungua file la Uhaini. Nothing was going to change him. Alipoulizwa baada ya mimi kumuhoji sana. Katuga alimure examine.
Kwamba unasemaje kuhusu hayo maneno yanaweza kuicover serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania. Kwa vile alishasema serikali haipo sasa ukurasa wa 176 majibu yake yakawa hivi.
The words quoted contexually reffred to Executive. Kwa muktadha wake sio yanasema ila muktadha.
Muktadha ni intepretation, akaendelea kurudia ile Mantra yale maneno unasema kila siku Baba yetu uliye mbinguni.
Kwamba Serikali inasimamia Sheria na uchaguzi unaendeshwa kwa katiba.
Election is held as per law and Constitution and the Executive is the only arm enforces the law. The word Executive exists.
Kwenye maneno tunayolalamikia hayapo lakini yapo. Contexually. Na baadae tukaambiwa constructive. Kisichokuwepo kinaletwa.
Huo ni ushahidi wa PW 1. Na aliposema hayo huo ndio ukawa msimamo wa kila Polisi aliyekuja hapa kutoa ushahidi.
Pw1 testimony set the tone for the three other police witness. For the two sio three.
Yeye PW 1 aliposema kwamba maneno yale ya uhaini kila polisi alisema hivyo hivyo. Ushahidi wao ulifanana kama sare zao za Polisi.
PW 2 alisema hivi, I construed the words tutaenda kuzuia uchaguzi kwasababu tunasema tutaenda kuhamaisha uasi as contain elememt of criminality because th election is conducted according to the constitution and the law.
Therefore kuharibu uchaguzi obstruction without comply to the law manifest the intention to intimidate the Executive which is the principle enforcer of the law and maintainer of peace...
Hayo maneno kwamba uchaguzi unaendeshwa kwa katiba na Serikali ndio inasimamia sheria ni maneno yaleyale kutoka kwa George Bagyemu. Ukurasa wa 183 uko hivyo.
Kwasababu ilishakuwa artice of faith huyo PW 2 kwenye cross examination PW 2 hakubadilika ndio yakawa majibu yake kwamba ni uhaini kwasababu uchaguzi upo kikatiba na serikali inasimamia kwahiyo umeitisha.
Sehemu ya 450
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
PW 16 ndie alichukua uongozi baada ya George. Alisema hivi. Huyu nae ni polisi. Ukurasa wa 434 the accused intended to intimidate the govt in to doing what he wanted or pursuing the cause of action he intended. By threatening to obstruct general election amount to treason.
Aliendelea kuelezea kwanini haya maneno ni uhaini ukurasa 485 anasema the words used by the accused such as tutazuia uchaguzi, tutahamasisha uasi were intended to intimidate the govt which is vested with the repsonsibility and authority to protect the country and by uttering those words he deliberately intended to intimidate the governemnt.
Under re examination alisema yafuatayo what i meant is that the words complained of i meant the govt is vested with the power to enforce the law of the country kwahiyo kusema maneno yale ni kuitisha serikali.
Msimamo wao ndio huo ukitishia uchaguzi ni uhaini na hiyo ndio Police thinking na sio thinking ya Wanasheria.
Waheshimiwa Majaji sio kila shahidi wa Upande wa mashitaka walikuwa na msimamo huo.
The eye witness PW 17 ni kwamba hakuunga mkono hiyo theory ya Mapolisi, hakuiunga mkono kabisa. He differed with the prosecution case.
Alipingana na msimamo wa Mashitaka ni shahidi wao lakini alitofautiana nao kabisa.
Kwenye ushahidi wake ni tofauti kabisa.
Alisema yafuatayo kuhusu lengo la Mkutano wa Tarehe 03/04/2025
"The meeting was intended to bring together Chadema aspiring candidate to discuss election related matters and the partys slogan No reforms, No Election.
Akaendelea kusema alot was discussed during meeting hower the main issue included the slogan No reforms and how Chadema inteded to approach the forthcoming general election i recall they stated that without reforms they would not participate in the general election.
Furhermore the Chairman Lissu spoke on how they plan to obstruct election and said tutazuia uchaguzi na tutakinukisha.
Huo ni ukurasa wa 481 na hayo ndio maneno ya aliyekuwepo, aliyesikia na kurusha matangazo hayo. Hakuna Uhaini wala kosa lolote.
PW 17 was also Extensive cross Examined. sasa when cross examined kwamba aliona chochote kuwa ni uhaini alisema yafuatayo, 498 ukurasa
"It is true in my statement i did not state the words spoken by Lissu constituting treasonous statement" Ni kweli maneno yale sikuandika kokote kuwa maneno ya Lissu yalikuwa ni makosa na yalitengeneza kosa la Uhaini.
Huyu PW 17 Sio shahidi wangu. Hakuona uhaini na hakusikia uhaini. Exhibit D16 ni muhimu sana katika pieces of Evidence ni muhimu sana katika kesi hii.
Kielekezo hicho D16 is complitely silence on the words tutazuia uchaguzi tutahamasisha uasi ni maneno hayapo kabisa kwenye hicho kielelezo.
Nilimuuliza kwanini haya maneno hayapo kwenye maelezo yako? Ukurasa wa 497 na 498 anasema hivi "the words are not contained in exhibit D16 it is true i was at the meeting i heard and saw what was going on personally and in the exhibit i recorded what was going on ....... "
Nilikuwepo nilisikia na kuona kilichokuwa kinaendelea mimi mwenyewe na kwenye kielelezo niliandika mambo ya No Reforms, No Election na akasema kwamba pia
The Leaders were not wrong to discuss no Reforms and Challenges facing election in their constituences.
Shahidi angekuwa wangu wangesema nilitegemea nini lazima angesema hivyo. Sasa huyu ni shahidi wao. Kifungu cha 67 kinasema ushahidi wa moja kwa moja. Ushahidi bora. Best Evidence Rule.
Kama ni ushahidi wa kuona ni aliyeona, kunusa basi aliyenusa, kuonja basi aliyeonja.
Sasa PW 17 alikuwepo, aliona, alisikiliza na alirusha matangazo yeye. Amesema sikuwa na kosa. Nimekaa mwaka mzima na nusu Gerezani halafu Mapolisi walikuwa na ushahidi huu wa PW 17.
Nisipozungumza haya kwa UKALI MAWE YATAZUNGUMZA.
Hapa Mhe. Lissu amekasirika kabisa, Jaji anasema kwa upole tuendeleee.
Sehemu ya 451
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Mhe. Lissu anasema, PW 17 alikuwa ni shahidi wa mafichoni nina shida na hilo na kwamba shahidi huyu alitoa ushahidi wake mafichoni lakini in all fairness sio yeye aliyejipeleka mafichoni aliwaambieni hakuna mtu hata mmoja aliyemtishia.
Tofauti na mashahidi wengine huyu PW 17 yeye hakuwa muhalifu kabisa, mashahidi wengine wote wa vificho walikuwa ni watuhumiwa, yeye alikuja kama Shahidi huru.
Kwa ushahidi wake na uzito wa ushahidi wake ni mkubwa sana. Waheshimiwa Majaji muhimu zaidi kuhusu shahidi huyu ni kwamba ushahidi wake unaunga mkono ushahidi wote wa Utetezi. His entire evidence is in substantial agreement with the evidence of defence side in all major issues.
Mambo yote ya Msingi amepingana na mashahidi wa Jamhuri na kuungana mkono na mambo yote ya Utetezi.
Hawa mashahidi wanne niliowataja PW 1,2 na 16 ushahidi wao umetofautiana fundamentally na PW 17.
Hii ina maana kwamba ushahidi wote wa mashitaka ni totally unreliable kwasababu ni NDIMI MBILI KAMA ZA NYOKA.
Ulimi mmoja unasema ni Uhaini na Ulimi mwingine unasema maneno haya hayana shida yoyote, hakuna kitu. On the basis of the authority cited yesterday.
This is a life or death of this case suala hili ninalosema kwa sasa kama ushahidi wao hauna credibility kwahiyo swali la JE KULIKUWA NA NIA YA KUTENDA KOSA LA UHAINI?
Kama ushahidi haushikiki basi kesi inakufa. Hoja sio hiyo peke yake.
Hii nadharia kwamba serikali inasimamia sheria ni hoja ya maana kiasi gani?
Kesi yote ya Mashitaka kwenye suala hili imejengwa kwenye hisia, supposittions kwenye suspicions sio kwenye ushahidi. Ni hisia kwamba analenga kuitishia serikali. It is based on suspicious. It is based on their beliefs and spoken words.
Serikali haikutajwa kokote wala kiongozi yeyote hajatajwa lakini kwenye vichwa vyao wana imani hiyo na kwasababu Lissu anailenga Serikali na Katiba inasimamiwa na Serikali.
Huu ni msingi wa hewa sio msingi wa mawe na kokoto.
Kesi imejegwa kwenye msingi wa hewa na sio mawe na Kokoto.
Nasema hivyo kwasababu hawa mashahidi wamerudia rudia sana na mawakili wao wamerudia rudia sana mambo ya kutaka kuzuia uchaguzi ni kuitishia serikali?
Je Serikali ni chombo pekee kinachosimamia Sheria?
Tuzungumze na mambo ya wazi.
Judiciary Administration Act Sheria ya usimamizi wa Mahakama. Je hii sheria inasimamiwa na nani? Inasimamiwa na Mahakama na sio Serikali wala chombo kingine.
Sheria ya Tume ya Utumishi wa Mahakama imasimamiwa na nani? Inasimamiwa na Judiciary.
Sheria ya Parlimentary Powers and Immunity Act inasimamiwa na nani? Na Bunge.
National Assembly Adminstration Act 2008 inasimamiwa na nani? Inasimamiwa na Bunge.
Sheria za uchaguzi zinasimamiwa na nani? Na Tume ya Uchaguzi. Sasa Tume ni Serikali?
Nchi hii kuna sheria inaitwa Kanuni ya Maadili ya Uchaguzi zinasimamiwa na nani? Na Tume.
Tanganyika Law Society Act inasimamiwa na nani? Inasimamiwa na Chama cha Mawakili.
Hii nonsense ya kwamba Serikali ndio inasimamia sheria imeletwa na Mapolisi. PW 1 ameianzisha ikabebwa na Mapolisi wengine na ikapelekwa kwa ofisi ya DPP nao wakaibeba wakaja nayo Mahakamani bila kufikiri. Nonsense!.
Jaji anasema tulia kidogo.
Mhe. Lissu anasema nina haki ya kukasirika nimekaaa gerezani kwa mwaka mzima na nusu, niache nizungumze.
Miaka 55 iliyopita kesi ya Amin Sam Mrisho Nasoro Mzava alisema Suspicion no matter how strong can not be the basis of conviction in criminal charge.
Msimamo huo wa miaka 55 iliyopita uliungwa mkono na Mahakama ya Rufani, Nathaniel Mapunda vs R 2006 TLR 395
35 years baadae kutoka kwenye kesi ya Amin Sam Mrisho mahakama ya rufani ilisema suspicion alone however grave it may ben be it not enough to sustain conviction kwneye kosa lolote iwaje kwenye kosa kama la Mauaji?
Sehemu ya 452
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Mhe. Lissu anasema Msimamo huu utaukuta kwenye maamuzi ya Mahakama hii kwenye kesi ya Justin Rutahirwa vs Bulchad Kalumna. Consolidated Criminal Appeal No... 2020 Justice Kilekamajenga alisema
Hisia hata kama ni nzito kiasi gani haziwezi zikawa msingi wa kutia mtu hatiani. Na hasahasa kwenye kesi nzito kama ya Murder.
Sasa hii ya kwangu sio kesi ya Murder.
Hii ni kesi ya Uhaini na Waheshimiwa Majaji UHAINI ni kosa pekee lililotajwa kwenye Katiba ya nchi. Ibara ya 28(4) inasema UHAINI KAMA UNAVYOFAFANULIWA NA SHERIA UTAKUWA NI KOSA LA JUU KABISA DHIDI YA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO.
Ndio kosa kubwa kuliko yote kwneye nchi hii na adhabu yake ni kifo. Walionishitaki wanataka mnihukumu kifo kwasababu ya hisia zao. Kwasababu wanahisi nilikuwa nalenga kuitishia Serikali.
Waheshimiwa Majaji Mahakama hii kwa misingi hii ya kisheria haiwezi kuwakubalia. Na nawaomba Majaji msiitikie wito wao, wito wao ni wito wa hisia msiwakubalie mwaliko wanaoutaka. Kunitia hatiani kwasababu tu wanahisi nililenga kuitishia serikali.
Ushahidi wa Utetezi unasemaje juu ya hii hoja? Ushahidi wangu ulikuwa simple, straight foward and consistent kwenye hii hoja.
DW 1 589 na 590 nilizungumzia nia ya kuitisha huo mkutano kwamba told the court the meeting was inteded of bring together all prospective candidate of the party from across the country ams it was called with the intention of exolaining the party no reforms no election resolution made by the party conglese.
Ndio ilikuwa nia yetu na ndio ilikuwa nia yangu. Tuliitisha watia nia kuwaeleza msimamo wetu. That was the intention.
Specifically on those words nilisema yafuatayo ukurasa wa 596 wa records
In that discussion i did not refer to the governement and what intended to do to the governement. Nikaendelea kusema ghe allegation that our objective was to threten the govenrnrmt is therefore misplaced.
My purpose was to explain kwa watia nia kuhusu changamoto za masuala ya uchaguzi na ili waelewe msimamo wa Chama wa no reforms no Election.
There was no intention to threaten the governement because threatening the governement was never part of my agenda. I did not mobilize people to engage in violence or disorder. Nilisema tutapambana kutaka mageuzi hadi reforms zitakapopatikana.
I was extensively and vicious cross examined nilikaliwa kooni kwelikweli lakini naomba muangalie kwenye record kama huo ushahidi wangu juu ya nia yangu kwamba ulihojiwa hata mara moja.
Mimi nimeangalia hiyo rekodi yote sijaona these governement lawyers cross examined me juu ya nia yangu kwenye mkutano ule. Hakuna hata mara mija walipofanya hivyo. Waliniuliza maswali alfu lela ulela. That aspect complitely remain unchallenged Justice Rumima Katiti, Nyerere Nyague, Chora Samson Kiberit Mahakama ya Rufani all those cases from Court of Appeal have established a principle that failure to cross examine a witness on a material point is an admission of his version of the story.
Kutonihoji kuhusu nia yangu huwezi kusema hukubaliani na nia yangu ya kuitisha ule mkutano. Hiyo nia umeikubali kabisa.
Ushahidi wangu umeungwa mkono na DW 2 Kwenye ukurasa wa 161 wa rekodi. Na ukiangalia nae pia aliulizwa maswali mengi lakini hakubadili msimamo wake kabisa angalia ukurasa wa 691 he never waver the position. Alisema tuliazimia bagamoyo na tulihitaji kuuelezea kwa watia nia.
Msimamo huo huo uliungwa mkono na DW 3 ukurasa wa 732 na 779 na 791 na 795 of the record. Kwenye swala la nia nae hakushake kwenye suala la nia.
Msimamo wa Utetezi ulishikiliwa pia na DW 4 ukurasa 799 na 800 wa hizo rekodi za Mahakama.
Sehemu ya 453
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Mhe. Lissu anasema Ushahidi wote huo wa mashahidi hao went largely uncontested by this army of this governement Lawyers. It remain intanct and therefore interm of the aforesaid authorities. Rumima, Nyerere failure to cross examined is deemed to be admission of the veracity of the defence testimony and story.
Hawakuhoji kwasababu walikubali story yetu.
Naomba nimalizie kwenye hoja hii kwa kusema yafuatayo.
Nimeshitakiwa kwa tuhuma ya kutengeneza nia ya kuchochea umma wakati sheria kifungu cha 39(2)d hakitambui umma. Kinatambua nia ya kuchochea mtu au kikundi.
Nimeshitakiwa kwa kutengeneza nia ya kuchochea umma ambao hautambuliki na sheria kuzuia uchaguzi wakati sheria haitambui nia ya kuzuia uchaguzi. Nia ya kuzuia uchaguzi haitambuliki na kifungu husika.
Nimeshitakiwa kwa kutengeneza nia ya kuchochea umma usiotambulika kuzuia uchaguzi usiotambulika kisheria ili kuitishia serikali ambayo sijaisema kokote kwenye maneno yangu na hawajaleta ushahidi wa kuthibitisha hilo.
Nimeshitakiwa kwa sababu ya hisia na sheria hairuhusu mashitaka ya hisia.
Katika mazingira haya hili swala la tatu. Jibu lake sio lingine zaidi ya HAPANA.
The only logical and xorrect answer is and can only be NEGATIVE. That is to say the accused did not inform any intention to instigate any person or group of person to obstruct the 2025 general election for the purpose of intimidating the Executive of the URT.
on the basis of Grey Likungu Mataka to sustain a conviction on the charge of treason the prosecution must prove the intention to commit treasonous conduct.
The prosecution failed to prove the intention to commit treasonous act.
Nimemaliza swala la tatu. Naomba niende swala la nne sasa kwa ruhusa yenu.
Swala la nne linasema JE HAYO MANENO yaliyotamkwa na Mshitakiwa yanatengeneza kosa lolote linalojulikana na sheria?
Hayo maneno hayo yamekuwa maarufu sana, yanatengeneza kosa linalotambulika na sheria za nchi hii. Yanaonesha kosa? Do they constitute any offence known to Tanzania laws?
Nitajibu swali hilo kama ifuatavyo.
Swala hili lilijitokeza kutokana na tuhuma zilizoletwa upande wa Mashitaka kwamba the accused uttered words amounted to criminal offence which determination ilisababisha mkuu wa upelelezi kanda ya Dar es salaam kufanya upelelezi.
Haya ni maneno yao Jamhuri sio yangu.
Maneno yenyewe yakoje yanasema nini?
Kwenye mkutano wa Tarehe 03/04/2025 mtuhumiwa alidhihirisha nia yake kwa kusema maneno yafuatayo "wanasema kitu kimoja sahihi msimamo huu unaashiria uasi tutazuia uchaguzi na hiyo ndio namna .. huu uchaguzi tutauvuruga vibaya sana..."
Haya ndio maneno yanayisemwa yanadhihirisha nia ya uhaini. Na ndio criminal offence.
Wahehsimiwa Majaji kitu cha kwanza kabisa. Kuhusiana na maneno haya. Ni kwamba hakuna mahali kokote ambapo upande wa mashitaka umeyafafanua hayo maneno.
Hawajasema kuvuruga uchaguzi maana yake ni nini na kwanini ni kosa?
Kuhamasisha uasi ni nini na kwanini ni kosa?
Hawajasema kuzuia uchaguzi ni nini na kwanini ni kosa?
Hawajasema kukinukisha ni nini na kwanini ni kosa?
Sio wajibu wangu mimi mshitakiwa kuyatolea maneno hayo ufafanuzi na kuonesha kuwa sio makosa. Sio wajibu wangu kisheria.
Ni wajibu wa upande wa mashitaka kufafanua hayo maneno yana maana gani na kusema kwanini ni makosa. Ni wajibu wao kueleza kwanini wanadhani ni kosa.
It is a question of burden of proof na lazima tuambiane ni nani ana wajibu wa kuthibitisha. That burden it never shift from the prosecution.
Kwasababu hawajafafanua wameleta hisia zao juu ya hayo maneno. Waheshimiwa Majaji ushahidi wa upande wa mshitaka juu ya haya maneno uko ukurasa 146 in the case of PW 1. Ukurasa 183 na 184 in the case of PW 2, na ukurasa wa 444 hadi 446 in the case of PW 16.
Sehemu ya 454
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Mashahidi wote hao wamesema hayo maneno yanatengeneza kosa la uhaini. Mtayaona kwenye hizo kurasa. Without exception wametoa sababu zilezile. Sababu ya kwanini wamefanya hivyo ni Sababu za Mapolisi. Ni walewale hakuna jipya.
Kwa upande mwingine mashahidi wote wa utetezi wamesema maneno yale hayana shida yoyote. Na hayo yapo kwenye ukurasa wa 196 na 123 kwa DW1, 671 na 672, 679, 681, 698 to 700, 726 in the case of DW 2. L
Waheshimiwa Majaji DW 3 ipo 764 na anataja kurasa kadhaa hapo pia.
DW 4 upo kwenye ukurasa 810na DW5 930 anataja kurasa kadhaa zinazohusu mashahidi hao.
Wahehsimiwa majaji mashahidi wote wa utetezi without exception hayo maneno yanayodaiwa hayana kosa lolote kwenye sheria za Tanzania.
Waheshimiwa Majaji kwa vile kuna 2 sets of evidence which are diametrically oppose what is the position of the law.
Kujibu swali hili the statrting point on this question must nencesarily article 28(4) of the constitution.
Maneno ya Katiba ni muhimu sana inasema hivi, uhaini kama unavyofafanuliwa na Sheria utakuwa ni kosa la juu kabisa dhidi ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania (Ibara ya 28(4) ya Katiba)
Waheshimiwa majaji, Uhaini kwa nchi hii ni ule uliofafanuliwa na Sheria. Nje ya Sheria ni Maneno matupu. Kwa vile uhaini lazima uwe umefafanuliwa na Sheria, ni sheria ipi inafafanua uhaini? Ni kifungu cha 39 cha Kanuni ya Adhabu ndio kinafafanua uhaini.
Waheshimiwa majaji kifungu cha 39 ni muhimu sana kwenye kesi hii. Kama ninayotuhumiwa kuyafanya hayamo kwenye kifungu hiki hakuna uhaini hapa. Kifungu cha 39 kina vifungu vidogo vinne. Hivyo vifungu vidogo vinne vimetengeneza matendo 10 ambayo ukiyafanya yanatengeneza kosa la uhaini.
Kitendo cha kwanza cha kihaini kwenye kigungu cha 39 (1)(a) ni kumuua au kujaribu kumuua Rais. Kitendo cha pili cha kihaini ni kuendesha vita dhidi ya Jamhuri ya Muungano 39(1)(b).
Kifungu cha 39(2) kimetengeneza matendo manne. Hivyo kitendo cha tatu kinaitwa forming the intention to effect or forming the intention to instigate any person or group wasababishe kifo cha Rais au Rais atiwe kilema au ajeruhiwe au afungwe ni uhaini 39(2)(a)
Kitendo cha nne ni kutengeneza nia ya kuwezesha au ukatengeneza nia ya wengine wawezeshe Rais apinduliwe kwa njia zisizo halali kutoka kwenye nafasi yake kama rais na jina lake kama mkuu wa nchi na amiri jeshi mkuu ni kitendo cha uhaini 39(2)(b)
Kitendo cha tano ni kutengeneza nia ya kuwezesha au kuwawezesha kupinduliwa kwa Serikali ya JMT ni uhaini 39(2)(c). Kitendo cha sita ni hii niliyoshtakiwa nayo, ukitengeneza nia ya kuwezesha au kushawishi watu wawezeshe kutishiwa kwa Serikali, Bunge au Mahakama unakuwa umetenda kosa la uhaini 39(2)(d)
Kosa namba 7,8 na 9 yako kwenye kifungu cha 39(3). Kitendo cha 7 kipo 39(3)(a) ambacho kinasema ukijiunga au kushirikiana nao na maadui wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ni kosa la uhaini. Kitendo cha 8 kinasema kuchochea mtu yeyote kuivamia Jamhuri ya Muungano kwa silaha au kama wale wakongo wanaitwa M23 ukiwaleta Tanzania ni uhaini.
Kitendo cha 9 cha kihaini kipo 39(3)(b) ukichukua silaha ndani ya Jamhuri ya Muungano kwa lengo la kuibadilisha serikali ili ibadilishe mambo yake ni uhaini typically hapa ni Kama M23 au wale wa Somalia , 39(3)(c)
Kutendo cha 10 kipo kwenye 39(4) ni kusaidia maadui wa Jamhuri ya Muungano kwa kufanya kitendo chochote cha kumsaidia adui kama vile kuhatarisha maisha, ni kitendo cha uhaini, haya ndio makosa ya uhaini kwa Sheria za Tanzania. Nje ya haya ni maneno matupu, ni hisia, ni ignorance and such like.
Sehemu ya 455
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
Waheshimiwa Majaji tuangalie sasa maneno yaliyoniweka gerezani mwaka na nusu inaelekea sasa.
Tuanze na neno tutavuruga uchaguzi, liko wapi kwenye hiyo list ya matendo 10 ya kihaini? Kuzuia uchaguzi, iko wapi?, kuhamasisha uasi kwa kingereza ni rebellion iko wapi kwenye Section 39??? Iko wapi Waheshimiwa majaji ili nilale usingizi mzuri leo kuwa nilisema maneno yanayokiuka sheria, ni wapi?? Haipo . Kukinukisha, iwe kukinukisha vibaya sana, kukinukisha sana sana ili angalua leo wanangu wherever they are walale kwa amani kuwa baba yao aliongea maneno ambayo yanakiuka sheria, yako wapi?? Hayapo waheshimiwa majaji.
Katiba imesema uhaini kama unavyofafanuliwa kwenye sheria, maneno yote yanayodaiwa niliyasema hayapo kwenye sheria, waheshimiwa majaji nimefungwa bure, nimeonewa, how can you say it otherwise? I am a father, nina ndugu wanakuja kila siku, nina wanachama hapa wanatoka everywhere in the country, a year and half, nalindwa na maaskari utafikiri ni muuaji wa aina gani? Why? Kwanini??
Waheshimiwa majaji kama hayapo kwenye kanuni ya adhabu, ugomvi ni uchaguzi, tunataka kuvuruga uchaguzi, tutazuia uchaguzi, Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani ya Mwaka 2024
Jaji Ndunguru: Nadhani tubreak hapo , upande wa mashtaka mnasemaje?
Job Mrema: hatuna pingamizi
Jaji Ndunguru: Unahisi kumaliza leo?
Mhe. Lissu: Hilo ni swali gumu Waheshimiwa majaji, huku anatoa tabasamu kama kawaida.
Jaji Ndunguru: Shauri linaahirishwa hadi saa nane na nusu
Mahakama itarejrea Saa NANE NA NUSU (8:30 Mchana)...
Mahakama imerejea.....
Sehemu ya 456
Mahakama imerejea.
Majaji wameingia wapo watatu kama kawaida yao wanaongozwa na Jaji Ndunguru.
Anasimama Katuga anasema corum iko kama asubuhi isipokuwa Ajuaye Zengeli, anasema wako tayari kwa ajili ya kuendeshea.
Jaji Ndunguru anamuuliza Mshitakiwa vipi?
Mhe. Lissu anamjibu niko tayari.
Mh. Lissu anasimama na kusema Wahehsimiwa Majaji tulipobreak nilipendekeza niingie kwenye hoja ya Sheria ya Uchaguzi na kama ambavyo nimeelezea kosa la Uhaini kama lilivyofafanuliwa kwenye Katiba.
Kosa nililoshitakiwa nalo halihusiani kabisa na kilichosemwa kwenye kanuni ya adhabu na ndio sheria pekee kwahiyo kama haya matendo niliyoshitakiwa nayo hayafit katika sehemu yoyote katika mojawapo ya matendo 10 ambayo kifungu cha 39 kimeyataja kwamba ukiyafanya haya unakuwa umefanya kosa la Uhaini.
Maana yake ni kwamba mimi sijafanya kosa lolote la Uhaini.
Sasa Wahehsimiwa Majaji kama sijafanya kosa lolote la Uhaini je nimefanya kosa lingine lolote kwa mujibu wa sheria za Tanzania? Ndicho ninachotaka kujadili kwa sasa.
Maneno ninayoshitakiwa nayo ni kuvuruga Uchaguzi na sheria No. 1 ya 2024 ndio Sheria inayosimamia uchaguzi kwenye nchi hii. Hiyo sheria ilitungwa kwa ajili ya Uchaguzi wa 2025 na sheria hiyo ilitungwa kusimamia uchaguzi ambao kwa mujibu wa DW 5 umekuwa ni uchaguzi ambao watu wengi wamekufa kuliko kipindi kingine chochote toka vita ya majimaji.
Sura ya 7 ya Sheria hiyo ya Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani. Inasema kwenye kichwa cha habari ni MAKOSA na ADHABU ZAKE.
Makosa yanayohusu Uchaguzi na adhabu zake. Waheshimiwa Majaji sheria hii katika Sura ya 7 imeorodhesha jumla ya Makosa 23 na adhabu zake.
Kuanzia kifungu cha 114 hadi 136 ni orodha ya makosa na adhabu zake. Makosa ambayo ukiyatenda unaweza kushitakiwa na kufungwa au ukapewa adhabu ya kijinai na kufungwa.
Maneno ambayo tunataka kujua ni makosa ni yale maneno tutazuia uchaguzi, tutavuruga uchaguzi na tutahamasisha uasi. Tumesema sio Uhaini hadi sasa kwa hoja tulizotoa. Sasa je ni kosa gani lingine?
Uzuri wa sheria hii umeandikwa Kiswahili kila anayejua kusoma na kuandika anaweza kusoma. Kosa la 1 lipo kwenye kifungu cha 114 linaitwa kosa la uandikishaji wapiga kura,
2. Kutumia wadhifa kushawishi watu wasiwe wagombea kifungu cha 115.
3. Mwenendo usiofaa wa mtendaji wa uchaguzi.
4. Makosa yanayohusu daftari la Wapiga kura kifungu cha 119 hili nalo mimi sihusiki na hayo yote niliyotaja.
5. Mwenendo usiofaa wa maafisa uandikishaji.
6. Kifungu 121 makosa yanayohusu fomu za uchaguzi na karatasi za kura.
7. Kosa la mtu kutangaza amejitoa kwenye kinyang'anyiro.
8. Kifungu cha 123 vishawishi vya rushwa kwa ajili ya kujitoa hilo nalo sihusiki nalo.
9. Kifungu cha 124 margin inasema makosa mengineyo kutoa ushahidi wa uongo wakati wa tamko.
10. Utunzaji wa siri ni kosa pia. Kif. 125
11. Kifungu cha 126 hongo na takrima
12. Impersonation kujifanya mtu mwingine. Kuchukua kadi ya mpiga ya mwenzako.
13. Kupoteza sifa kwa kuhukumiwa kwa kosa la kitendo cha Rushwa.
14. Kosa la 14 liko kifungu cha 129 bad influence ushawishi mbaya.
15. Kosa la kif.130 hongo na rushwa kwa maafisa wa tume.
16. Hatia ya kujifanya mtu mwingine. Mimi ni Tundu Lissu wa miaka yote sijajifanya mtu mwingine.
17. Adhabu ya vitendo vya rushwa na vitendo haramu.
18. Kuingilia Mikutano halali ya hadhara ni kitendo haramu vilevile.
19. Makosa yanayohusu siku ya uchaguzi. Kuvaa nguo za chama siku ya uchaguzi. Hilo pia sijafanya.
20. Unyanyasaji na ukatili wa kijinsia wakati wa uchaguzi. Hilo nalo halinihusu katika kesi hii.
21. Kuchafua matangazo ya uchaguzi. Wagombea wameweka mapicha unararua.
Hayo ndio makosa kwa mujibu wa sheria ya uchaguzi na ukiyafanya hayo yana adhabu zake zilizoelezwa kwenye sheria.
Hakuna kukinukisha hakuna kuzuia uchaguzi sio kosa kabisa. Na sio makosa kwasababu kifungu cha tano cha kanuni ya adhabu kimefafanua makosa ni vitu gani?
Sehemu ya 457
Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission)
An Act, attempt or omission punishable by law, hayo ndo makosa.
Kama hakijawekewa adhabu na hakijatamkwa sio makosa.
Hayo maneno yanayodaiwa kuwa ya kihaini sio makosa ya kihaini kwa mujibu wa kifungu cha 39 chote na vilevile sio makosa kwa mujibu wa makosa yaliyoorosheshwa kwenye sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Udiwani.
Sio makosa ya Jinai kokote kwahiyo ukiyasema yanakuwaje makosa ya kuchochea mtu kufanya jambo halali? Kosa lilitakiwa jambo lisiwe halali na liwe kinyume na sheria ndio lingekuwepo kosa hapo.
Waheshimiwa Majaji nataka nifunge kwenye hilo suala kwamba Je maneno yanayolalamikiwa ni makosa kwa mujibu wa Sheria?
Na jibu ndio hilo nililolionyesha na sio makosa ya Uhaini wala jinai nyingine.
Jibu la issue no. 4 ni Negative. Maneno niliyosema sio makosa kwa mujibu wa sheria za Tanzania na sio pia ni Uhaini.
Sasa Waheshimiwa Majaji naomba niende kwenye issue no. 5 inahusu uchapishaji yaani PUBLICATION.
No issue ya tano ni Deed yaani kitendo.
Inasema JE KUTAMKA YALE MANENO NI KITENDO KWA MUJIBU WA KIFUNGU CHA 39(2)(d) cha Kanuni ya Adhabu.
Whether the alleged words constitute a deed?. Suala hili kwa lugha rahisi upande wa mashitaka wanasema kusema ni matendo.
Issue ni je maneno ni matendo?
Kwanza Waheshimiwa Majaji naomba nifafanue hii confusion imetokea wapi?
Hii ni confusion ya kutengenezwa makusudi na upande wa mashitaka. It is a delinerately confusion created ili kuhalalisha hoja fulani. Iko hivi kifungu cha 39(2)(d) kinasema any person who forms an intention to instigate any lerson or grouo of person to intimidate the executive and manifest such intention by any overt act or deed or by publishing by printing or writing shall be liable of conviction
Masharti ya kifungu lazima uthibitishe kwa kuchapisha maandiko au maandishi au kwa kitendo cha wazi. Khatibu Gandi ilisema mananeo matupu sio Uhaini.
Sasa ili wanitengenezee kosa wakasema maneno ni matendo kumkwepa Khatibu Gandi. Wamedraft mashitaka kwa kusema the accused manifested his intention by his deed of uttery. Kwahiyo namna ya kuhalalisha maneno haya ni kosa wakaona waseme maneno ni matendo. Wanataka kuepuka masharti ya sheria.
Ili kuendana na kifungu cha 39(2)(d) cha Penal Code.
Pia wametengeneza tofauti kwenye maneno ambayo haipo kwamba overt act na deed vinatofautiana. Utofauti wake ni nini?
Hoja yangu ya kwanza ni kwamba acts and deed in their plain meaning means the same thing.
Kwa maana ya kawaida kiswahili chake ni kimoja kwamba ni MATENDO.
Kwenye kingereza in their plain english meaning oxford advanced learner disctionary an act means a particular thing that somebody does.
Hiyo dictionary inasema it is synonimous as an action. Kwa Kiswahili ni kitendo.
What is a deed in the same Dictionary a deed is a thing that somebody does. It is synonimous with an act.
Therefore a deed is essentially the same as an act. Kifungu cha 39(2)(d) kinaposema kitendo kitathibitishwa with an overt act or deed maana inasema inahitaji kitendo na sio kitu kingine.
Hayo maneno mawili kuthibitisha kwamba yanasema ni kitu kimoja twende kwenye Blacks Law Dictionary hiyo ni famous Kamusi ya Kisheria.
Blacks Law Dictiomary 7th Edition what does it say about an action is something done or perfomed. It also a deed.
It is a process of doing or perfoming. Haya ni matendo. Kwahiyo Wahehsimiwa Majaji an act is the same thing as a deed. Something that is done. It can not be something that is said
Maneno hayawezi kuwa ni Matendo. Kwahiyo hii charge inayonikabili inaposema nilithibitisha nia yangu ya uhaini kwa matendo yangu ya maneno haiwezekani. Words can not be deed. Na kwavile haiwezekani hii hati ya mashitaka ni Defective. Ni mbovu kwasababu imetaja kitu ambacho hakipo kwenye sheria.
The charge is defective on this particular point.
Sehemu ya 458 itaendelea.....
Part 458
Mhe. Lissu anaendelea kufanya mawasiliano yake ya mwisho (Final submission).
Sasa nimetumia the Oxford Advanced Dictionary na Black’s Law Dictionary kwasababu maneno hayo hayajawa defined kwenye sheria yetu. Na bahati mbaya sijapata case law. Mawakili wanaonisaidia kufanya research wanafanya kazi kubwa sana na Mungu awabariki, lakini hawajapata definition ya overt act and deed kutoka kwenye case laws. Hili ni eneo ambalo mnapaswa kutoa mwongozo for the future.
Sasa niendelee Waheshimiwa Majaji. Information inasema hivi na hili ni tatizo la pili la Information.
“The accused person manifested his intention by his deed of uttering by saying the following words.”
Sasa waliyoileta hiyo uttering hawajui wameleta kitu gani. Uttering kisheria ni nini?
Wametengeneza kitu ambacho kina destroy completely their case. Sheria Penal Code inasema nini maana ya Uttering? Ni neno la kisheria.
Maana ya kisheria imesema hivi, Sect. 5 inasema hivi anasoma. Haya ni matendo yanayohusiana na forgery, counterfeit na mambo yanayohusiana na hayo.
Kifungu cha 342 kinasema uttering false documents, kifungu cha 360 uttering counterfeit coin. Anasoma vifungu kadhaa vya Penal Code na kusema uttering pekee iliyopo kwenye Sheria ya Penal Code.
Ndio maana uttering nilimuuliza shahidi wa Jamhuri, hilo neno uttering limetafsiriwa wapi? Hilo neno Utter lipo kwenye kifungu cha 53(b) cha Sheria ya Huduma ya Habari.
Hati ya Mashitaka namna ilivyolitumia neno Uttering, kwahiyo shitaka kwa vile lipo kwenye kanuni ya Adhabu, basi Sheria inayotumika ni Kanuni ya Adhabu wala sio Sheria ya Huduma ya Habari.
Kwenye Penal Code uttering ni mambo ya forgery na habari za coin huko. Shitaka hili ni bovu, wameleta maneno ambayo hayapo kwenye sheria waliyotumia kunishitaki.
It is completely defective. Kwanza maneno sio matendo. Words cannot be deed and the use of the word uttering destroys the legal validity of the information.
Authorities are now settled, the law are now settled on what should happen information introduce something which is alien to the law, it invalidate such information. It makes the information incurably defective.
Time is long past for that. Hawawezi kuomba kurekebisha kitu kwa sasa.
Authority ninayowapa ni Court of Appeal of Tanzania in case of
Osward Abubakar Mangula versus R, CA 153/1993 CAT at Mbeya, at page 5 to 6, Judge Samatta as he then was.
Kesi nyingine maarufu kwenye Law Reports
Musa Mwaikunda vs R, 2009 TLR 387.
Na kesi nyingine ni
Hassan Jumanne Msingwa sio Msigwa vs Republic, CA 290/2014 CAT at Tabora, 1st December/2015, Justice Massati.
Kwahiyo by introducing uttering into information, the prosecution render the Information Incurable Defective.
The answer to 5th issue must be negative, that is to say, a deed is not the same as the spoken words and the uttering pleaded in the information does not constitute an overt act as per section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code.
Hati ya mashitaka haitibiki, ni mbovu sana. Wameingiza maneno ambayo sio maneno ya Kisheria, maneno ya mtaani yanaingizwa kwenye nyaraka za kisheria.
For purpose of treason, uttering words does not constitute offence of treason.
Sasa niende kwenye issue no. 6.
Jaji Ndunguru: Nafikiri uanze kesho hiyo hoja ili twende vizuri.
Mhe. Lissu: Ni sawa kabisa.
Jaji Ndunguru: Mashitaka mnasemaje?
Katuga: Tuanze kesho tu ni sawa, naunga mkono.
Jaji Ndunguru anacheka kidogo. 😂
Basi tukutane kesho saa tatu asubuhi kwa ajili ya kujibu hilo swali la sita.
Chanzo: Hilda Newton, Mtando wa X