Charity

SUMMARY OF TUNDU LISSU'S TREASON TRIAL RULING – 6 NOVEMBER 2026 The High Court has acquitted CHADEMA Chairman Tundu Lissu of treason but convicted him of the lesser offence of incitement under Section 390 of the Penal Code, invoking Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 1. The Court's ruling The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of treason, particularly the alleged intention to threaten the government. Nevertheless, the court found that Lissu's statements urging citizens to prevent or disrupt the 2025 elections amounted to incitement. The court rejected the defence's objection that the charge sheet did not adequately specify the offence. 2. The prosecution's arguments The prosecution maintained that Lissu's public statements were intended to mobilise citizens to disrupt the 2025 elections and that his words demonstrated unlawful intent, regardless of whether the government was actually intimidated. 3. Lissu's strongest contestation Lissu mounted three fundamental challenges: First, violation of the right to a fair trial: He argued that he had been convicted of an offence that was not on the charge sheet and against which he had not been afforded an opportunity to defend himself. Second, political context: He maintained that his statements must be understood within CHADEMA's political campaign for constitutional and electoral reforms, not automatically characterised as criminal incitement. Third, political impunity: He warned that the conviction could provide political cover for those responsible for the mass killings surrounding the October 2025 elections by shifting responsibility towards opposition leaders. 4. The fundamental legal question Can a court acquit someone of the principal charge of treason and subsequently convict them of a lesser offence that was not formally charged, without ensuring that the accused has been given a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves? The central concern is that the right to a fair trial cannot be circumvented through judicial substitution of criminal charges. Lissu's strongest ground for challenging this judgment is therefore the alleged violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing, compounded by the question of whether the court properly exercised its powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act. NOTE: Tundu Lissu has been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for an offence that was neither included in the original charge sheet nor formally charged against him, and in respect of which he was never afforded an opportunity to present a defence. This constitutes a grave violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial and the principles of due process.