In view of the ongoing case facing the chairman of the Tanzania's main opposition party Mr. Tundu Antipas Lissu in which the government of United Republic of Tanzania is prosecuting him on a charge of treason.
The trial court has the gigantic task to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that evidence adduced in court by the prosecution side is capable of incriminating the accused person with the charge he is being accused of failure of which will lead to the summary acquittal of the accused person.
First of all the treason offence may have a different interpretation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but from the legal gist which can be acceptable worldwide the treason can reasonably be defined as the crime of betraying your own country by trying to overthrow its government or helping its enemies.
What Counts as Treason?
Waging war: Fighting against your own country or joining an enemy military.
Helping enemies: Giving money, secrets, food, or safe shelter to a country or group attacking your nation.
Betraying leaders: Trying to kill or harm the head of state.
Proof and Punishment
Hard to prove:
Laws usually require very strong proof, such as a confession in court or two witnesses who saw the exact same illegal act.
I admit that I'm not a legal pundit and I've been making a track of this case involving Tundu Lissu vs the State for sometime now but up this day that Tundu Lissu is winding up his defense, I've failed to trace even the elements of treason based on the testimony from the prosecution side.
In Tanzanian penal code, the treason offense carries the severe penalty. The punishment is very serious and can include, life in prison, or even the death penalty upon conviction.
In the highly democratic countries like the United States, treason was defined restrictively by the framers of the Constitution. History had taught them that men in power might falsely or loosely charge treason against their political opponents; therefore, they denied Congress the authority to enlarge or reshape the offense. Treason against the United States “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
In view of the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution side in this case, the evidence tendered so far, in my view, does not meet the criminal threshold for treason offense as alleged by the prosecution.
In my view, if anything then the fair and reasonable offense that could have been preferred by the prosecution side could perhaps be the incitement which is the act of provoking, urging, or encouraging someone to behave violently, commit an illegal act, or feel intense animosity or persuading or rousing a person or crowd to take negative, destructive, or unlawful action but not treason.
Owing to the discredited status that our present judiciary is always accused of, I'm afraid to imagine that a miscarriage of justice which is a serious failure or error in the legal system that results in an unfair or wrong outcome, such as punishing an innocent person or letting a guilty person go free might take a centre stage to determine the outcome of this case...
I think that bearing in mind the stakes that this regime has in regard to this case and the real status of the current state of this country's judiciary which befits the description of the extended arm of the executive, I wouldn't take bets on the side of the defence side in this case emerging triamphant and I think the trial court already preserves the verdict even though the trial is far from being finalised.