Kilichojiri Mahakamani Septemba 25, 2026, kesi ya Uhaini Tundu Lissu vs Jamhuri

[Bush Dokta]

Manyanza ,

..asante sana kwa HISANI kubwa unayotutendea kwa kutuletea up-dates za kesi ya TL.

..mimi nadhani tunaofuatilia up-dates zako tuko ktk makundi mawili.

..kundi la kwanza, wanapendelea ukipata up-date uiweke pale uzi ulipofikia.

..kundi la pili, ambalo napenda kukiri kuwa nimo humo, tunapendelea up-dates ziwe ktk ukurasa wa kwanza wa uzi wako.

..Nakuomba unapoleta up-dates uyakumbuke makundi hayo mawili na shauku waliyonayo kufuatilia.

..Natanguliza shukurani Mkuu. Tuonane Jumatatu MUNGU akipenda.

Manyanza na Waufukweni watakuja kupt Shavu kama alilopata Joving journalist na Suley

 

[Bagamoyo]

25 September 2026
High of Tanzania
Kivukoni Front
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Treason case no. 19605 / 2025
Republic versus Tundu Lissu

View attachment 3677458
Photo: Tundu Antipas Lissu

EPISODE 95: The treason case facing CHADEMA party Chairman Tundu Lissu has continued today 25 September 2026 which is in the final submission stage for the third consecutive day.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jL8xCAZe--I

Tundu Lissu has said "Mere words do not constitute treason" while referring to the case of Khatibu Gandhi alias Hatty McGhee, our legal law History of Treason was taken and enacted directly from English Law when the British were ruling us i.e Tanganyika, Kenya, Uganda and Nyasaland [Malawi] , please follow all that has been reported on the video above





This legal transformation dramatically modernized and unified how treason and allied offences were codified in both the Colony of Kenya and the League of Nations Mandate of Tanganyika

Prior to 1930, British courts in East Africa relied on a patchwork of historical English Treon Acts and regional ordinances. In 1930, the Colonial Office enacted:

The Kenya Penal Code (Ordinance No. 10 of 1930)

The Tanganyika Penal Code (1930)
These codes were closely modeled on the Queensland Criminal Code of 1899, which English jurists preferred for colonial administrative purposes because it translated complex English common law into precise, written provisions.


EPISODE 96: TUNDU LISSU TELLS JUDGES I *** SULUHU HASSAN TO CONFIRM IF SHE WAS INTIMIDATED BUT SHE DID...

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cGekI6-leHw
https://m.youtube.com/hashtag/mahakamani
EPISODE 96The treason case against the Chairman of the Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA), Tundu Lissu, has been adjourned this afternoon, September 25, 2026, to Monday, September 28, 2026, where it will continue with the hearing of the final submissions from the accused, Hon. Tundu Lissu, Chairman of CHADEMA party

The decision was made by Judge Dunstan Ndunguru who is leading the three-judge panel of the high court of Tanzania that is hearing the case.

Before the judges decided to continue the case on Monday, Tundu Lissu requested a recess as is the case on other days after clocking at exactly One o'clock noon where he had been requesting a recess of one and a half hours, and the judges concur to that decision.

Tundu Lissu is continuing to present his final nine arguments, where by the time the decision was made he had reached the seventh argument which states "if the United Republic was intimidated" with the words that have been used by the accused Tundu Lissu.

Hon. Tundu Lissu has questioned whether the president and other government leaders were intimidated and if they were not intimidated then he is not guilty VERY BRIEF: WHAT LISSU DID IN COURT TODAYTundu Lissu continued with his final arguments in his treason case, focusing on two main arguments:1. Publication argument: He disputed the claim that he was the one who published the video of the CHADEMA meeting on Jambo TV on YouTube .

Tundu Lissu referred to the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW16 and especially PW17, saying that the evidence shows that Jambo TV employees were the ones who recorded and broadcast the video.

Was Government of Samia Suluhu Hsssan intimidated ?

On Whether the Government was intimidated: Tundu Lissu said the prosecution did not present evidence to prove that the Government of the United Republic was intimidated by the words mentioned in the charges.

Tundu Lissu further said that various people he had requested to be called to testify about it did not show up in court.Lissu concluded the argument by saying:“The answer to question seven can only be NEGATIVE — the government was not intimidated.

Tundu Lissu then requested a 1½-hour recess, explaining that he had been up all night preparing for the work and needed to rest his body.The judges decided to adjourn for today until Monday 28 September 2026 at 9:00 am when we Uhuru Media Online will return again to bring you live updates from the High court of Tanzania .

Mtanzania alipoamua kupanda stejini [jukwaa] kuigiza hotuba ya Nelson Mandela katika mahakama ya Makaburu inayotetea sheria za kikaburu zilizotungwa na Bunge la Makaburu :

I Am Prepared To Die | Lucian Msamati​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gQw6Hv0LZgI

a riveting speech with all the power of rhetoric.. Mandela at the height of his power, the steely resolve and a a captivating personality...

TOKA MAKTABA :

Hakimu Mkazi Mkuu
Kisutu Bibi Titi Rd
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

KUMECHAFUKA MAHAKAMANI LISSU AOMBA KUNYONGWA "Kama nina hatia NINYONGWE, twendeni huko"​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2j_RNWiypzo

Tundu Lissu aonesha umakini, ujasiri kama aliokuwa nao Nelson Mandela katika mahakama ya utawala wa wabaguzi wachache, kesi ya kihistoria mwaka 1962:

On Freedom / Uhuru / Reforms​

"Black Man in a White Court"​

Nelson Mandela's First Court Statement - 1962​

Nelson Mandela International Day​

18 July​

Menu

© UN Photo/John Isaac

On Freedom​

"Black Man in a White Court"​

Nelson Mandela's First Court Statement - 1962​

• Extracts from the court record of the trial of Mandela held in the Old Synagogue court, Pretoria, from 15 October to 7 November 1962. Mandela was accused on two counts, that of inciting persons to strike illegally (during the 1961 stay-at-home) and that of leaving the country without a valid passport. He conducted his own defence.

MANDELA:
Your Worship, before I plead to the charge, there are one or two points I would like to raise.
Firstly, Your Worship will recall that this matter was postponed last Monday at my request until today, to enable Counsel to make the arrangements to be available here today. Although Counsel is now available, after consultation with him and my attorneys, I have elected to conduct my own defence.

Some time during the progress of these proceedings, I hope to be able to indicate that this case is a trial of the aspirations of the African people, and because of that I thought it proper to conduct my own defence.

Nevertheless, I have decided to retain the services of Counsel, who will be here throughout these proceedings, and I also would like my attorney to be available in the course of these proceedings as well, but subject to that I will conduct my own defence.

The second point I would like to raise is an application which is addressed to Your Worship. Now at the outset, I want to make it perfectly clear that the remarks I am going to make are not addressed to Your Worship in his personal capacity, nor are they intended to reflect upon the integrity of the court. I hold Your Worship in high esteem and I do not for one single moment doubt your sense of fairness and justice. I must also mention that nothing I am going to raise in this application is intended to reflect against the Prosecutor in his personal capacity.

The point I wish to raise in my argument is based not on personal considerations, but on important questions that go beyond the scope of this present trial.

I might also mention that in the course of this application I am frequently going to refer to the white man and the white people. I want at once to make it clear that I am no racialist, and I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or from a white man.

The terminology that I am going to employ will be compelled on me by the nature of the application I am making.
I want to apply for Your Worship's recusal from this case.

I challenge the right of this court to hear my case on two grounds.

Firstly, I challenge it because I fear that I will not be given a fair and proper trial.

Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws made by a parliament in which I have no representation.

In a political trial such as this one, which involves a clash of the aspirations of the African people and those of whites, the country's courts, as presently constituted, cannot be impartial and fair.

In such cases, whites are interested parties. To have a white judicial officer presiding, however high his esteem, and however strong his sense of fairness and justice, is to make whites judges in their own case.

It is improper and against the elementary principles of justice to entrust whites with cases involving the denial by them of basic human rights to the African people.

What sort of justice is this that enables the aggrieved to sit in judgement over those against whom they have laid a charge?

A judiciary controlled entirely by whites and enforcing laws enacted by a white parliament in which Africans have no representation - laws which in most cases are passed in the face of unanimous opposition from Africans -

---

MAGISTRATE:
I am wondering whether I shouldn't interfere with you at this stage, Mr Mandela. Aren't we going beyond the scope of the proceedings? After all is said and done, there is only one court today and that is the White Man's court. There is no other court. What purpose does it serve you to make an application when there is only one court, as you know yourself. What court do you wish to be tried by?

---

MANDELA:
Well, Your Worship, firstly I would like Your Worship to bear in mind that in a series of cases our courts have laid it down that the right of a litigant to ask for a recusal of a judicial officer is an extremely important right, which must be given full protection by the court, as long as that right is exercised honestly. Now I honestly have apprehensions, as I am going to demonstrate just now, that this unfair discrimination throughout my life has been responsible for very grave injustices, and I am going to contend that that race discrimination which outside this court has been responsible for all my troubles, I fear in this court is going to do me the same injustice. Now Your Worship may disagree with that, but Your Worship is perfectly entitled, in fact, obliged to listen to me and because of that I feel that Your Worship-

---

MAGISTRATE:
I would like to listen, but I would like you to give me the grounds for your application for me to recuse myself.

---

MANDELA:
Well, these are the grounds, I am developing them, sir. If Your Worship will give me time -

---

MAGISTRATE:
I don't wish to go out of the scope of the proceedings

happy to do so? READ MORE : Nelson Mandela's First Court Statement - 1962

 

[Bagamoyo]

Mtanzania alipoamua kupanda stejini [jukwaa] kuigiza hotuba ya Nelson Mandela katika mahakama ya Makaburu inayotetea sheria za kikaburu zilizotungwa na Bunge la Makaburu :

I Am Prepared To Die | Lucian Msamati​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gQw6Hv0LZgI



TOKA MAKTABA :

Hakimu Mkazi Mkuu
Kisutu Bibi Titi Rd
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

KUMECHAFUKA MAHAKAMANI LISSU AOMBA KUNYONGWA "Kama nina hatia NINYONGWE, twendeni huko"​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2j_RNWiypzo

Tundu Lissu aonesha umakini, ujasiri kama aliokuwa nao Nelson Mandela katika mahakama ya utawala wa wabaguzi wachache, kesi ya kihistoria mwaka 1962:

On Freedom / Uhuru / Reforms​

"Black Man in a White Court"​

Nelson Mandela's First Court Statement - 1962​

Nelson Mandela International Day​

18 July​

Menu

© UN Photo/John Isaac

On Freedom​

"Black Man in a White Court"​

Nelson Mandela's First Court Statement - 1962​

• Extracts from the court record of the trial of Mandela held in the Old Synagogue court, Pretoria, from 15 October to 7 November 1962. Mandela was accused on two counts, that of inciting persons to strike illegally (during the 1961 stay-at-home) and that of leaving the country without a valid passport. He conducted his own defence.

MANDELA:
Your Worship, before I plead to the charge, there are one or two points I would like to raise.
Firstly, Your Worship will recall that this matter was postponed last Monday at my request until today, to enable Counsel to make the arrangements to be available here today. Although Counsel is now available, after consultation with him and my attorneys, I have elected to conduct my own defence.

Some time during the progress of these proceedings, I hope to be able to indicate that this case is a trial of the aspirations of the African people, and because of that I thought it proper to conduct my own defence.

Nevertheless, I have decided to retain the services of Counsel, who will be here throughout these proceedings, and I also would like my attorney to be available in the course of these proceedings as well, but subject to that I will conduct my own defence.

The second point I would like to raise is an application which is addressed to Your Worship. Now at the outset, I want to make it perfectly clear that the remarks I am going to make are not addressed to Your Worship in his personal capacity, nor are they intended to reflect upon the integrity of the court. I hold Your Worship in high esteem and I do not for one single moment doubt your sense of fairness and justice. I must also mention that nothing I am going to raise in this application is intended to reflect against the Prosecutor in his personal capacity.

The point I wish to raise in my argument is based not on personal considerations, but on important questions that go beyond the scope of this present trial.

I might also mention that in the course of this application I am frequently going to refer to the white man and the white people. I want at once to make it clear that I am no racialist, and I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or from a white man.

The terminology that I am going to employ will be compelled on me by the nature of the application I am making.
I want to apply for Your Worship's recusal from this case.

I challenge the right of this court to hear my case on two grounds.

Firstly, I challenge it because I fear that I will not be given a fair and proper trial.

Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws made by a parliament in which I have no representation.

In a political trial such as this one, which involves a clash of the aspirations of the African people and those of whites, the country's courts, as presently constituted, cannot be impartial and fair.

In such cases, whites are interested parties. To have a white judicial officer presiding, however high his esteem, and however strong his sense of fairness and justice, is to make whites judges in their own case.

It is improper and against the elementary principles of justice to entrust whites with cases involving the denial by them of basic human rights to the African people.

What sort of justice is this that enables the aggrieved to sit in judgement over those against whom they have laid a charge?

A judiciary controlled entirely by whites and enforcing laws enacted by a white parliament in which Africans have no representation - laws which in most cases are passed in the face of unanimous opposition from Africans -

---

MAGISTRATE:
I am wondering whether I shouldn't interfere with you at this stage, Mr Mandela. Aren't we going beyond the scope of the proceedings? After all is said and done, there is only one court today and that is the White Man's court. There is no other court. What purpose does it serve you to make an application when there is only one court, as you know yourself. What court do you wish to be tried by?

---

MANDELA:
Well, Your Worship, firstly I would like Your Worship to bear in mind that in a series of cases our courts have laid it down that the right of a litigant to ask for a recusal of a judicial officer is an extremely important right, which must be given full protection by the court, as long as that right is exercised honestly. Now I honestly have apprehensions, as I am going to demonstrate just now, that this unfair discrimination throughout my life has been responsible for very grave injustices, and I am going to contend that that race discrimination which outside this court has been responsible for all my troubles, I fear in this court is going to do me the same injustice. Now Your Worship may disagree with that, but Your Worship is perfectly entitled, in fact, obliged to listen to me and because of that I feel that Your Worship-

---

MAGISTRATE:
I would like to listen, but I would like you to give me the grounds for your application for me to recuse myself.

---

MANDELA:
Well, these are the grounds, I am developing them, sir. If Your Worship will give me time -

---

MAGISTRATE:
I don't wish to go out of the scope of the proceedings

happy to do so? READ MORE : Nelson Mandela's First Court Statement - 1962

The Emancipation Proclamation

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4iY1TtS3s
I Have a Dream" is a public speech that was delivered by American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, in which he called for civil and economic rights and an end to racism in the United States. Delivered to over 250,000 civil rights supporters from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.,

 

[tpaul]

Iwapendeze ndugu Wana jukwaa la JamiiForums naitwa Manyanza, nipo tayari kuwaletea update za mahakamani.

Kaa tayari kwa Updates

View attachment 3677436​

-------------

MAHAKAMA IMEANZA TUNDU LISSU ANAFANYAMAJUMUISHO YA MWISHO.

SEHEMU YA 1, TAREHE 25.9.2026.

Lissu ameshaingia Mahakamani, na Majaji nao wameingia Mahakamani tayari.

Karani wa Mahakama anajiandaa kusoma:

Criminal Session, Kesi Na. 19605 ya 2025
Jamhuri dhidi ya Tundu Antipas Lissu.

Nassoro Katuga anasimama kuwatambulisha wenzake.

Nassoro Katuga:
“Iwapendeze Waheshimiwa Majaji, naitwa Nassoro Katuga, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu.

Nipo pamoja na:

1. Job Mrema — Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu
2. Ignas Mwinuka — Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu
3. Tawabu Issa — Wakili Mwandamizi
4. Cuthbert Mbilinyi — Wakili wa Serikali
5. Winiwa Kasara — Wakili wa Serikali

Waheshimiwa Majaji, jopo hili la Mawakili sita linaiwakilisha Jamhuri katika shauri hili leo.

Mshtakiwa yupo na anajiwakilisha mwenyewe.

Shauri limekuja kwa ajili ya mshtakiwa kuwasilisha hoja zake.

Upande wa Jamhuri tupo tayari.”

Jaji Ndunguru:
“Mshtakiwa?”

Lissu:
“Nipo tayari.”

Jaji Ndunguru:
“Tuendelee. Nakumbuka jana tuliishia pale ulipotaka kuanza hoja ya tano.”

Lissu:
“Waheshimiwa Majaji, nalazimika kujitetea mwenyewe.

Nipo gerezani mwaka mmoja na nusu.

Kile ambacho tungetumia muda wetu vizuri kukitumia kwa mwezi mmoja, nalazimika kutumia muda wangu wa final submission kwa wiki moja.

Kama kuna jambo nimelisahau jana, nitalirudia.

Nataka nianze; yapo masuala jana niliyasahau.”

Lissu:
“Ndiyo ilivyo hivyo. Nalazimika kufanya kazi ya mwezi mmoja kwa wiki moja.”

Jaji Ndunguru:
“Tuendelee.”

Lissu:
“Kuna kitu muhimu juu ya hoja niliyoimaliza jana.

Je, maneno yanatengeneza uhaini?

Nataka niongee kitu muhimu ambacho kitasaidia Mahakama inielewe na kufanya uamuzi sahihi sana.

Kwa nini Mahakama ya Rufani katika kesi ya Khatibu Ghandi ilisema, ‘Maneno matupu hayavunji mfupa’?

‘Mere words do not constitute treason.’

Ni kwa sababu Mahakama ya Rufani ilikuwa inafahamu historia yetu kuhusu uhaini.

Na msiwe na wasiwasi, sitotumia masaa matatu katika hilo.

Sheria yetu ya Jinai (Penal Code) ilitungwa mwaka 1930.

Na sheria yetu ilitungwa moja kwa moja kutoka Uingereza, wakati Waingereza walikuwa wanatutawala.

Mwaka mmoja kabla ya 1929, that is, Bunge la Uingereza lilipendekeza sheria za jinai kwa ajili ya Tanganyika, Kenya, Uganda na Nyasaland (Malawi ya sasa).

Bunge la Uingereza lilipendekeza sheria za jinai.

Ndiyo, mwaka 1930 Bunge la Uingereza likatunga sheria kutokana na draft ya Westminster.

Vifungu vinavyohusu uhaini vilichukuliwa moja kwa moja kutoka katika sheria ya Uingereza ya mwaka 1948.”

SEHEMU YA 2.

Hiyo sheria ya Uingereza inaitwa Treason Felony Act ya 1848.

Palikuwa na tofauti moja na sheria hiyo ya Treason Felony Act.

Kwenye ile sentensi inayosema katika kifungu cha 39(2)(d), kwenye sheria ya Uingereza inasema:

“Manifest such by publishing any writing or printing, or by open advice, speaking, or by any overt act or deed.”

Sasa, Waheshimiwa Majaji, sheria ya Uingereza ya mwaka 1848 ilikuwa imeweka uhaini kwa kuzungumza (kwa kutoa maneno).

Sasa, hicho kifungu kilichokuwa kinaruhusu maneno kuwa ni sehemu ya kosa la uhaini kiliwekewa ukomo wa maisha yake.

Ile sheria, kifungu chake cha 4, kilisema hicho kifungu kitatumika kwa miaka miwili tu.

Kwa hiyo, baada ya mwaka 1850, kifungu hicho kiliacha kutumika kama sababu ya kumtia mtu hatiani.

Na ilipofika mwaka 1891, The British Parliament amended that section by repeal.

The repealing Act was the Statute Law Revision Act of 1891 ya Westminster.

From that time to this day, English law on treason is counted as Section 39 of our Penal Code.

Our Penal Code was enacted in 1930 by British law.

Kwa vile English law ilishafuta uhaini wa maneno, ndiyo maana sheria yetu vilevile haijawahi kuwa na uhaini wa maneno.

Na ndiyo maana, Waheshimiwa Majaji, Marehemu Jaji Mkuu Francis Nyarali kwenye kesi ya Khatibu Ghandi alisema kuwa maneno matupu hayafanyi uhaini.

Alikuwa anajua hii sheria imetoka wapi.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, nimesema hiyo sheria ya uhaini kama ilivyopendekezwa na Uingereza kwa Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya na Nyasaland.

Isipokuwa nchi mmoja imeongeza uhaini wa maneno.

Uganda, katika Penal Code yao, wameongeza uhaini baada ya Mwingereza kuondoka.

Kwa sheria yetu, hakuna uhaini wa maneno.

Napendekeza uamuzi wa Mahakama ya Juu ya Uingereza:

Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General (Ex parte Rusbriger and another) [2003] UKHL.

Wanataka kuingiza kitu kwenye kesi hii wakati Waingereza waliotuletea sheria hii waliachana nacho tangu mwaka 1890; wao wanataka kukileta leo.

Pia, lengo la upande wa mashtaka ni kuingiza uhaini wa maneno katika sheria zetu ambao haujawahi kuwa katika sheria zetu milele.

Na tatu, hoja hii ya upande wa mashtaka inapinga msimamo wa Mahakama ya Rufani ya Tanzania kwenye kesi ya Khatibu Ghandi, kwamba maneno matupu hayatengenezi uhaini.

SEHEMU YA 3

Rai yangu, Waheshimiwa Majaji, mtakapofanya uamuzi, msikubali mwaliko wao wa kuingiza katika sheria yetu ya uhaini mambo ambayo hayajawahi kuwepo kabisa.

Mambo ambayo Mahakama ya Rufani ilishayawekea msimamo.

“You are bound by what the Court of Appeal said: ‘Uhaini wa maneno haupo.’”

Sasa, kwa ridhaa yenu, Waheshimiwa Majaji, naomba nizungumze suala la PUBLICATION.

Swali ni: Je, mshtakiwa anayelalamikiwa alichapisha katika mtandao wa Jambo?

Waheshimiwa Majaji, hili ni suala muhimu sana.

Ni suala la kufa au kupona kwa kesi.

Both in Khatibu Ghandi and Gray Likungu Mattaka, ili upande wa mshtakiwa utiwe hatiani, ni lazima upande wa mashtaka uthibitishe printing or writing.

Na usipothibitisha, the case dies on arrival.

Kwenye ukurasa wa 132 wa rekodi, upande wa mashtaka ulituhumu siyo tu kwamba mshtakiwa alitoa maneno wanayoyalalamikia, bali pia alichapisha katika Jambo TV YouTube Channel.

Umma ukayatumia hayo maneno mara moja.

Kuna kitu kimoja hapa nataka niweke wazi.

Upande wa mashtaka haujanituhumu kuchapisha kupitia kwa mtu mwingine; tuhuma yao ni kwamba nilichapisha mwenyewe.

Sikusaidiwa wala sikutumia mtu mwingine.

Kwa hiyo, kusiwe na hoja kwamba, “Aha, ulitumia fulani?” Hapana. Wanatakiwa kuthibitisha kwamba nilichapisha mwenyewe.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, hii Publishing inayotajwa katika kifungu cha 39(2) cha Kanuni ya Adhabu, ambayo lazima ithibitishwe na upande wa mashtaka.

Huu uchapishaji unaozungumzwa hapa ni uchapishaji wa namna gani?

The term “Publishing” or “Publication” is not defined anywhere in the Penal Code.

The fact kwamba haijatafsiriwa haina maana kwamba haijulikani.

Tafsiri yake, Waheshimiwa Majaji, ilitolewa katika Mahakama ya Rufani kwenye Gray Likungu Mattaka, na hiyo decision ikawa affirmed na Khatibu Ghandi.

Kwenye ukurasa wa 509 hadi 510 wa Gray Likungu Mattaka, Mahakama ya Rufani ya Afrika Mashariki ilisema:

“The term publishing under section 39(2) of the Penal Code means sending out or sharing a writing or printing with a third party.”

Na huo uamuzi ukawa affirmed by our own Court of Appeal in Khatibu Ghandi.

Kitu kisichokuwa maandishi au chapisho kikisambazwa, hiyo siyo publishing kwa mujibu wa sheria.

SEHEMU YA 4.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, kama “publish” ni “sharing a writing or printing with a third party”, what about a video clip?

Waheshimiwa Majaji, video, pictures au television images are publication under the Cybercrimes Act.

Kwa bahati mbaya sijashitakiwa under the Cybercrimes Act (Sheria ya Makosa ya Mtandaoni), kwa hiyo “publishing” ya sheria ya makosa ya mtandaoni ibaki hukohuko.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, the term “publication” includes, under the Sheria ya Vyombo vya Habari, publication ina include usambazaji wa video.

Kwa bahati mbaya yao, sijashitakiwa chini ya Sheria ya Habari, kwa hiyo na hiyo “publication” ya Sheria ya Habari ifike hukohuko.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, nimeshitakiwa chini ya Penal Code, ambapo “publication” ni writings or printing.

Na hiyo Penal Code ipo chini ya Katiba, kwenye Ibara ya 13(6)(c), ambapo sisi raia tunalindwa na Katiba kwamba hatuwezi kushtakiwa kwa makosa yasiyokuwepo kwenye sheria.

Kama haikuwa makosa jana, hayawezi kuwa makosa leo.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, kwa heshima kubwa kwa mawakili ambao wamekuwa wakipambana na mimi kwa mwaka mmoja na nusu, kesi yao ilikufa siku ilipowasili — “dead on arrival”.

Kwamba mwaka mmoja na nusu tunajaribu kuthibitisha jambo lililotakiwa kujulikana siku ya kwanza.

Imenipa simanzi kubwa sana kuhusu mfumo wa haki jinai wa nchi yetu.

Mahakama zetu, polisi wetu.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, twende kwenye ushahidi wao sasa.

Swala hili limekuwa mojawapo ya maswala yaliyozua ubishi mkali mahakamani.

Kama nilivyosema, ilikuwa ni swala la kufa au kupona kwa kesi.

Ushahidi ukoje, Waheshimiwa?

Upande wa mashtaka waliita mashahidi wao:

PW1
PW2
PW3
PW16
PW17

Upande wa utetezi, mashahidi wote watano walipinga jambo hili.

Tuanze na ushahidi wao.

One notable thing in particular, with the exception of PW17, testified under oath that it was the accused who published a video on Jambo TV’s YouTube channel.

Ulikuwa ni mkanganyiko mtupu.

Walijichanganya, wakachanganyikiwa.

Tuanze na PW1, George Bagyemu.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, kwenye ukurasa wa 144 wa rekodi, PW1 anazungumzia hiyo video. Baada ya kuangalia vipande vipande vya hiyo video clip, aliamua kuwatafuta Jambo TV.

Maneno yanayofuata: “Who recorded the clip?”

Akiwatafuta Jambo TV walioirekodi hiyo video.

Kwa hayo maneno tu, hiyo video ilichapishwa na Jambo TV.

Ukurasa wa 144.

Na ukurasa wa 145 anasema aliyoambiwa na Jambo TV, kwamba anaijua/anaifahamu clip na kwamba hiyo imerekodiwa na mfanyakazi wake.

Anakubali mara ya pili kwamba aliyerekodi siyo mimi.

Anasema huyo mtu wa Jambo TV aliyerekodi yupo Dodoma.

PW1 alipiga simu kwa Kamishna wa Polisi Ng’anzi Dodoma kumjulisha aliyerekodi na eneo paliporekodiwa.

Kwa hiyo, PW1 chini ya kiapo anasema aliyerekodi siyo mimi.

SEHEMU YA 5

Yote hayo yalijulikana tarehe 06 Aprili 2025. Kwamba nani alichapisha hiyo video tena siku tatu baada ya mkutano kufanyika.

Walijua vizuri nani alirekodi, ila kwa utaratibu wa Polisi wakasema, “Mpe kichwa.”

Waheshimiwa Majaji, tarehe 07 walimpata aliyeirekodi hiyo video.

Wakapata na nakala ya hiyo video yenyewe.

Na tarehe 07 hiyo hiyo wakapata pia maelezo ya aliyeirekodi.

Maelezo ya PW17 yapo Mahakamani kama Kielelezo D16.

Akaeleza kinagaubaga jinsi alivyoagizwa na boss wake, John Marwa.

Vifaa walivyokuwa navyo kama kamera Sony NHR 100.

Walikuwa watano.

Akaeleza walivyorusha moja kwa moja.

Akaeleza walivyopeleka kwenye mitandao ya Jambo TV kama YouTube, Instagram na X.

Akawaambia kwamba hajaziondoa; zipo mitandaoni hata sasa.

Hiyo ni tarehe 07, siku mbili kabla sijakamatwa.

Kwa sababu ya hayo, Mapolisi walikuwa na hamu ya kunikamata siku hiyo hiyo ya tarehe 07.

Walikuwa na ushahidi wa maandishi yake na memory card aliyokabidhi.

Baada ya siku mbili ndiyo wakanikamata kwa kuchapisha kwenye mtandao.

“They are not even ashamed! Shame on you. Shame on you, shame on you.”

Maneno niliyoyasema yapo ukurasa wa 145.

Na katika ukurasa wa 147, “It’s the accused who published with the intention to threaten the Executive.”

Mdomo mmoja, ndimi mbili.

Na katika cross-examination, PW1 alikiri kwamba ilipelekwa mtandaoni na PW17.

Alikiri pia kwamba amesoma maelezo ya shahidi.

Hata hivyo, aliendelea kung’ang’ania kwamba ni mshtakiwa ndiye aliyechapisha kwenye mitandao (ukurasa wa 159).

Waheshimiwa Majaji, PW1 aliendelea kuflip-flop.

Ukurasa wa 160 anasema, “It’s not true a Jambo TV employee recorded a clip.”

Akasema siyo kweli kwamba PW17 aliyechapisha mtandaoni peke yake ni pamoja na Tundu Lissu.

Alipozidi kubanwa, akabadilika tena, ukurasa wa 165 hadi 166.

Akasema PW17 ndiye aliyeniambia yeye kwamba amechapisha.

SEHEMU YA 6

“Ndimi mbili kama nyoka. Nyoka ni hatari.” 🐍

Waheshimiwa Majaji, PW1 aliulizwa kwamba alikuwa na maana gani aliposema kwamba ni PW17 ndiye aliyechapisha.

Akasema, “Tumechapisha sisi, ila yeye ndiye aliyesababisha.”

Akaulizwa alikuwa na maana gani kusema Jambo TV ndiyo waliochapisha.

Akasema, “Nilikuwa na maana kwamba ni mshtakiwa ndiye aliyesababisha Jambo TV kuchapisha.”

Pia ni maneno ya Wakili Mkuu wa Serikali, Nassoro Katuga, kwamba “nilichapisha kupitia kwa wengine.”

Waheshimiwa Majaji, huo ndiyo ulikuwa ushahidi wa PW1, na ndiye aliyekuwa leading witness.

“Evidence was totally lost credibility.”

Waheshimiwa Majaji, twende kwenye ushahidi wa PW2, ukurasa wa 211 wa rekodi za Mahakama.

Ni confusion ile ile ya boss wake, George Byagemu.

PW2 katika ukurasa wa 214:

«“I don’t know who published the video in Jambo TV.”»

Huyu ni shahidi wa upande wa mashtaka.

Anasema hajui nani aliyechapisha video katika mtandao wa Jambo TV.

Lakini katika re-examination, ukurasa wa 222, Waheshimiwa Majaji, akasema ni mshtakiwa aliyechapisha hiyo video katika mtandao wa Jambo TV.

Akasema hivyo kwa sababu alialika waandishi wa habari.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, PW3 alikubali katika ushahidi wake kwamba hiyo video ipo katika mtandao wa Jambo TV.

Na akakubali kwamba aliikuta huko katika mtandao wa Jambo TV.

Ukurasa wa 276, akasema:

«“Katika uchunguzi wangu, sikugundua nani aliweka hiyo video katika mtandao.”»

Nilimuuliza kama inawezekana kujirekodi mwenyewe na wakati huo huo ukarusha matangazo wakati unahutubia.

Akajibu katika ukurasa wa 277:

«“Sijui kibinadamu kama inawezekana kujirekodi mwenyewe na wakati huo huo ukarusha matangazo wakati unahutubia.”»

Wakamleta Amani Mahamba, PW16, kuja kuokoa jahazi lao.

Ushahidi wa PW16 upo katika ukurasa wa 466 wa rekodi za Mahakama.

SEHEMU YA 7

PW16 alisema kwa majigambo yafuatayo:

«“I testify it was you who published a video on Jambo TV.”»

«“It was you who transmitted a video on Jambo TV.”»

«“It’s you who circulated a video on Jambo TV channels.”»

«“It’s you who distributed the video on the Jambo TV YouTube platform.”»

Nilipoanza kumshughulikia hayo madai, yali-collapse.

Ukurasa wa 467, akasema:

“Sina uhakika kama wewe ni mfanyakazi wa Jambo TV.”

“Sina uhakika kama una password ya kutumia Jambo TV YouTube Channel.”

Akaendelea kusema:

“Nimesoma maelezo ya PW1 kwamba alikuwa ni mtu aliye-rekodi mkutano, na kwamba PW1 ndiye aliyerusha matangazo.”

Mwanzoni alikuwa anasema, “Ni wewe, ni wewe.”

Lakini kwenye cross-examination, akasema:

“Sina uhakika kama ni wewe.”

Ukurasa wa 467.

PW16 akaendelea kueleza Mahakama, Waheshimiwa Majaji, kwamba hata George Byagemu alisema:

«“That the video was recorded and live-streamed by a Jambo TV employee.”»

Amin Majamba anasema PW17 kwamba walielekezwa na Mkurugenzi wao, John Marwa, na ku-livestream hotuba yako.

Mahali pengine, PW16 alizungumzia kwa kirefu Inspector Andrew Chulu.

Nilipomuuliza kama amesoma maelezo ya Andrew Chulu, akasema:

“Nimesoma maelezo ya PW17 na Andrew Chulu,” katika ukurasa wa 469.

Katika maelezo yake, Askari Polisi Andrew Chulu na mwandishi wa habari wa Jambo TV wanasema ni waandishi wa habari wa Jambo TV ndiyo waliorekodi na kusambaza video katika mitandao ya Jambo TV.

Baadaye akabadilisha maelezo yake katika re-examination, ukurasa wa 466.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, niende kwa shahidi wao PW17.

Huyu ni star witness wa kesi yao.

Yeye ndiye anayeweza kusema ukweli—kama nina hatia au nimewekwa gerezani bure.

Maneno ya PW17, maelezo yake yapo katika ukurasa wa 490.

PW17 anasema yeye na wenzake walitumwa na boss wao kwenda Makao Makuu ya CHADEMA, Mikocheni, kwenda kutangaza mkutano.

SEHEMU YA 8

PW17 akaendelea kusema:

“Tulipofika Makao Makuu ya CHADEMA, we were prepared to cover the meeting and livestreaming.”

“We used the camera to footage to mainstream the meeting.”

📺 Kwa hiyo, walitumia mtandao wao wa Jambo TV kutangaza.

Na jina walilotumia kurusha matangazo lilikuwa Jambo TV.

Kwamba hilo wazo la kutangaza live lilikuwa la kwao, wala siyo la mtu mwingine.

Ukurasa wa 492.

Yote hii ni examination-in-chief ya shahidi wao.

Hapo alikuwa hajahojiwa na mimi hata kidogo.

Amekubali kula kitu. 😄

Waheshimiwa Majaji, katika mashahidi wote 17—mashahidi 12 wa upande wa mashtaka na 5 wa utetezi—huyu alikuwa shahidi mwepesi zaidi.

⚽ Kama ni goli la kujifunga wenyewe, ni kosa la kumleta shahidi PW17.

Tena goli la kisigino! 😂

Kwa jinsi huyu shahidi alivyojifunga, wala hawaku-re-examine.

The case was finito.

😂 MAHAKAMA KICHEKO!

Ushahidi huu unaiambia nini Mahakama?

Katika kesi ya Makonyo John @ Kibuna vs Republic, ushahidi huu, Waheshimiwa Majaji, siyo wa kuaminika.

Hakuna Mahakama inayoitwa Mahakama ya Sheria itakayotumia ushahidi huu.

Totally unreliable and completely not credible.

Na hii siyo kesi ya kuku. Ni kesi ya uhaini, inahusu maisha ya watu.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, ushahidi wa utetezi ukoje?

Ushahidi wa utetezi ukinyooka.

Ukurasa wa 592 ni ushahidi wangu. Nilisema everywhere waliorusha matangazo siyo mimi.

Na vilevile upo ukurasa wa 621.

Na ukurasa wa 622.

SEHEMU YA 9

Ukaungwa mkono na DW2, DW3, DW4 na DW5.

Mashahidi wote wa utetezi walikuwa consistent kwamba walio-rusha matangazo na kadhalika walikuwa wafanyakazi wa Jambo TV.

Walisema hivyo katika examination-in-chief, na walisema hivyo pia wakati wa cross-examination.

Lakini kubwa kuliko yote, utetezi huu uliungwa mkono na PW17, aliyekuwepo katika mkutano na ndiye aliyerusha matangazo.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, nataka kufunga hoja hii kwa kusema machache tu juu ya sheria.

Hoja hii ya publication ya video/images, nimesema mwanzo, haipo kabisa katika sheria niliyoshtakiwa nayo.

Nataka kusema masuala ya habari yanaongozwa na Sheria ya Huduma za Habari ya mwaka 2016.

Mtu yeyote akitaka kujua nani anayewajibika katika kurusha matangazo ya redio na mitandao—

Kifungu cha 7(1) ndicho kinachosema nani mwenye haki ya kuhariri na kusambaza taarifa zinazorushwa katika televisheni.

Nani ana haki na matangazo hayo, na nani anayeyamiliki.

7.-(1) Every media house and journalist shall enjoy the following rights—

(a) freedom to collect or gather information from different sources;

(b) freedom to process and edit information in accordance with professional ethics governing journalists; and

(c) freedom to publish or broadcast news.

Kwa kifungu hiki, ile “nonsense” inayoitwa Constructive Publication imekufa on arrival.

Kwa sababu mwandishi au chombo kinachokusanya habari ndicho chenye habari.

Hakuna Constructive Publication hapa.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, hapa sitaki kuzungumzia maumivu ya kukaa gerezani mwaka mmoja na nusu.

Ina simanzi na ni masikitiko yangu kwa State Attorney kunishtaki kwa jambo ambalo halipo.

Ambapo siku ya kwanza wangeweza kuona kwamba hakuna kosa.

Na hii itaenda hadi kwenye compensation.

Wameniweka gerezani kwa hoja ya uongo.

Nina watoto na familia, nawekwa gerezani kwa kosa ambalo halipo.

Naishi kwenye kachumba ka futi sita, wakati nina nyumba nzuri tu.

Wanatungia watu makosa ya uongo.

Na mimi ninayeburuta miguu kwa kutembea, nikiwa na risasi mwilini, kwa nchi yangu nzuri.

SEHEMU YA 10

“I can imagine kwa watu ambao sio wajanja kama mimi sijui wanafanywaje.”

Wanajua sijatenda kosa tangu siku waliponikuwa. Kila mtu anajua hilo.

JAJI NDUNGURU:
“Tuendelee, nimeshaandika.”

🗣️ LISSU:
Kwa hiyo nahitimisha kwa kusema hoja ya sita ni NEGATIVE.

HOJA YA SABA

Waheshimiwa Majaji, hoja ya saba ni:

Je, Serikali ilitishwa na hayo maneno?

Hoja hii inazungumzia matokeo ya nia ya kutenda uhaini chini ya kifungu cha 39(2).

Waheshimiwa Majaji, huwezi kuona hilo katika kesi ya Gray Likungu Mattaka.

Na watu wengi hawajui kwamba kesi ya Gray Likungu Mattaka ndiyo kesi ya Bibi Titi Mohamed.

Bibi Titi Mohamed alikuwa Mwenyekiti wa kwanza wa UWT na mpigania uhuru wa nchi hii.

Ule mtaa unaoitwa Bibi Titi Mohamed umepewa jina lake. Yeye ndiye aliyeshitakiwa kwa uhaini.

Tunaita kesi hiyo Gray Likungu Mattaka kwa sababu ndiye aliyekuwa mshtakiwa namba moja.

Mahakama ni mahali pa kuelimishana pia.

Katika kesi ya Gray Likungu Mattaka, haikufika katika hatua ya intention.

Na ndiyo maana juzi nilisema Mahakama hii ina nafasi ya kuweka historia.

Mahakama hii sasa inaweza kujielekeza katika kifungu cha 10(2).

Kama nia ni kutenda kosa, basi matokeo yaliyokusudiwa kutendwa na nia hiyo lazima yasemwe na yathibitishwe kwa ushahidi.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, kwa maana hiyo, upande wa mashtaka ulitakiwa kuonyesha kwenye hati ya mashtaka, inayotuhumu kwamba kulikuwa na nia ya kuitisha Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano.

Walitakiwa kuonyesha matokeo ya nia hiyo—Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano ilitishika au haikutishika.

Na walitakiwa kuonyesha katika Information kwamba, walipokuwa wakileta huo ushahidi, Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano ilitishika au haikutishika.

Upande wa mashtaka haukuonyesha hilo kwenye hati yao ya mashtaka (Information).

Walifikiri unarusha mashtaka hivi, litakalompata na limpate.

Hawakubainisha katika mashtaka kwamba:

«“Any particular shown how the Executive of the United Republic has been intimidated.”»

That failure to show the results makes the case defective.

Essentials of the Information must be shown.

Lazima uonyeshe vielelezo vya mashtaka, na usipovionyesha, hati ya mashtaka ni batili.

Siyo tu kwamba hawakuonyesha vielelezo kwenye hati yao ya mashtaka; vilevile hawakuonyesha ushahidi wowote kuhusu jinsi Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano ilivyotishika.

Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano ipo katika Sura ya Pili ya Katiba.

Yote yanaelezea Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano.

Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano inaongozwa na Rais.

Ndiyo Kiongozi Mkuu wa Serikali na ndiye Amiri Jeshi Mkuu.

Akipaswa aje atoe ushahidi kama Serikali yake imetishika.

Mimi niliomba aitwe.

Walionishtaki wakapinga vikali, na Waheshimiwa Majaji mkanikubalia.

Mimi, ambaye nilishtakiwa, nilitaka aitwe, lakini hakuna.

SEHEMU YA 11

Mimi nilijua kifungu cha 10(2) kinataka nini, lakini hakuna.

Vilevile, Waheshimiwa Majaji, Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano ina Makamu wa Rais, na wakati ule alikuwa anaitwa Philip Isdory Mpango.

Mimi niliomba aitwe. Upande wa Serikali ulipinga vikali, kwa hiyo hakukuwa na ushahidi wake, na Waheshimiwa Majaji mliwakubalia.

Mtu wa tatu anayeunda Serikali, kwa mujibu wa Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano, ni Waziri Mkuu wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania.

Wakati ule alikuwa anaitwa Majaliwa Majaliwa.

Yeye ndiye Kiongozi Mkuu wa Shughuli za Serikali na Kiongozi wa Bunge.

Mimi niliomba aitwe, lakini mkanikatalia.

Serikali inaundwa na Mawaziri; hakuna hata Waziri mmoja ambaye amekuja.

Serikali inaundwa na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali, lakini hakuja.

Serikali inaundwa na Mkurugenzi wa Mashtaka, lakini hakuja.

Serikali inaundwa na Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar, lakini hakuna kiongozi hata mmoja kutoka Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar aliyekuja.

Serikali inaundwa na Wakuu wa Vyombo vya Dola, lakini hakuna hata mmoja aliyekuja.

Niliomba afike hapa Mkurugenzi wa Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa na Ujasusi, lakini Serikali ilipinga na Waheshimiwa Majaji mkawakubalia.

Mlinikubalia waje Mkuu wa Majeshi, IGP na Mkurugenzi wa Makosa ya Jinai.

Kingai alikuja, lakini alinikatalia kutoa ushahidi.

Kwenye rekodi, hakuna hata mmoja aliyekuja kuthibitisha kama Serikali ilitishika.

Kama Serikali haikutishika, maana yake sina kosa.

Upande wa utetezi hatukuwa na burden yoyote kuthibitisha hili.

Burden ilikuwa kwao, lakini wameshindwa kuthibitisha, na hata kujaribu wameishindwa.

Tuna kesi ya uhaini, na wale wanaosema tumeitisha Serikali hawajajaribu hata kuthibitisha hata Mkuu wa Wilaya fulani.

Waheshimiwa Majaji, hawa nilio wataja kutokufika kwao Mahakamani kuna maana gani?

Maana yake ya kutokumwita ni kwamba walizuia asije, kwa sababu kesi yote imejengwa kwenye misingi ya uongo.

Kwa hiyo, Waheshimiwa Majaji, naiomba Mahakama iseme kwamba wangekuja wangesema ukweli, ndiyo maana hawakuitwa.

More importantly, jibu la swali la saba, Waheshimiwa Majaji, can only be NEGATIVE.

Jibu la swali hili ni:

SERIKALI HAIKUTISHWA.

🗣️ LISSU:
Wangekuwa wametishwa, wangeitwa Mahakamani.

Jibu la hili ni HAPANA, HAWAKUTISHIKA.

Naomba twende mapumziko, tutakuja kuzungumzia masuala mengine.

JAJI NDUNGURU:
“Upande wa mashtaka mnasemaje?”

NASSORO KATUGA:
“Waheshimiwa, hatuna pingamizi, isipokuwa hatujajua ni saa 1 au saa 1 na nusu.

Tuombe Mungu amalize akirudi.”

🗣️ LISSU:
“Saa 1 na nusu, Waheshimiwa Majaji.”

Off the record:
“Ni kwamba nakesha usiku kufanya kazi hii.

Ninapoomba kupumzika kwa saa 1 na nusu, ni ili nipate kupumzisha mwili kidogo.”

JAJI NDUNGURU:
“Kwa mengi hayo hayo, kwa leo tuishia hapa. Tuendelee siku ya Jumatatu saa 3:00 asubuhi.”

🚶🏾‍♂️ MAJAJI WANATOKA.

KESI IMEHAIRISHWA MPAKA JUMATATU SAA 3:00 ASUBUHI.

TUKUTANE JUMATATU ASUBUHI.

Tundu Lissu ni mwalimu wa sheria. Akitoka jela wampeleke kule UDSM Law School akafundishe sheria.

Katika somo lake hili analotoa mahakamani, nimefanikiwa kupambanua maana za maneno ya kisheria yafuatayo kuhusu examination, miongoni mwa mengine:
1. Examination in chief
2. Cross eximanation
3. Re-examination.

Asante sana mwalimu Tundu Antipas Mugway Lissu.

 

[Bagamoyo]

27 September 2026

Weekly Round-up
Lissu faces a single treason charge under Section 39(2)(d) of Tanzania's Penal Code, arising from remarks he allegedly made on April 3, 2025 .