Dar es Salaam. The third prosecution witness in the treason case against Chadema national chairman Tundu Lissu concluded his testimony at the Dar es Salaam High Court (Magistrate’s Division) on October 23, 2025, stressing that he could not record every detail in the written statement he gave to police because doing so would amount to producing a book or a research report.
The witness, Police Inspector Samuel Eribariki Kaaya (39), a photographic specialist attached to the Photographic Unit of the Commission for Forensic Science Investigations at Police Headquarters, Dar es Salaam, made the remarks as he finished answering a series of questions intended to reconcile his in-court evidence with the written statement he had provided to police, and in response to cross-examination by the accused, Tundu Lissu.
Inspector Kaaya gave evidence for six consecutive days from Wednesday October 15 until he finished on October 23. He testified before a three-judge bench hearing the case: Dunstan Ndunguru, James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde.
Lissu faces a charge of treason contrary to section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code, arising from remarks he is alleged to have made about preventing the holding of the 2025 General Election.
When led by Senior State Attorney Tawab Issa (SSA) to explain one matter of reconciliation between answers he gave in court and his written police statement, Kaaya said the written notes he prepared for police were only a summary of his work and that he could not possibly write down every detail in those statements because they would then be research reports rather than statements of evidence.
Kaaya explained this position after Lissu put 75 questions to him about aspects of his oral testimony given in court that do not appear in the written statement he supplied to police.
In response to some of Lissu’s questions, Kaaya admitted familiarity with certain matters and denied knowledge of others, as follows:
Lissu: “Witness, are you aware you were asked 165 questions in court by the Republic’s lawyers?”
Witness: “I am not certain.”
Lissu: “Are you aware that of those 165 questions asked by your lawyers, 112 are not contained in the statement you wrote to police?”
Witness: “I am not certain.”
Lissu: “Witness, 68 per cent of the questions asked by the State counsel are not in the statement you wrote to police — true or not?”
Witness: “True.”
Lissu: “Why are the answers you have given in court not included in the statement you made to police?”
Witness: “The statement I wrote to police is a summary of the work I carried out; you cannot write everything because you would be writing research.”
Lissu: “Have you given a reason in court for why you did not include your in-court evidence in the police statement?”
Witness: “I have not given a reason.”
Lissu: “Who wrote those statements to the police?”
Witness: “I wrote them myself.”
Lissu: “In the statement you wrote, who warned you?”
Witness: “The warning statements do not contain a warning-officer.”
Lissu: “Who warned you?”
Witness: “I wrote it myself.”
Lissu: “When police prepare written statements there is a verification process — true or not?”
Witness: “I wrote it myself.”
Lissu: “Who trained you police officers to write warning statements?”
Witness: “Our fellow police officers.”
Lissu: “Are you familiar with the Police General Orders (PGO)?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lissu: “When did you last read the Police General Orders?”
Witness: “This morning.”
Lissu: “I stand accused of treason here; I am alleged to have broadcast seditious material during my meeting and uploaded it online. Tell the judges: is it possible that the person speaking and the person holding the camera recording live are the same person?”
Witness: “I do not know.”
Lissu: “In a professional forensic inquiry can you determine who uploaded the video online, given that I am accused of having uploaded it?”
Witness: “When conducting a metadata investigation you examine the link that uploaded the video; therefore, I did not identify a person.”
Lissu: “You have answered very well, witness — may God bless you.”
Lissu: “Tell the judges who was operating that camera on April 3, 2025 for the recording.”
Witness: “I do not know and I am not familiar with that.”
Lissu: “From your knowledge, is it possible for someone without a Jambo TV username, without a YouTube account or password, and who is not a Jambo TV employee, to upload the video to Jambo TV?”
Witness: “It depends. Technology has advanced; there are things called hacks which enable someone to access an account without a password.”
Lissu: “Witness, I am persuaded by everything you have said, but I maintain the allegation that I uploaded the seditious material and put it on that account; I would like clarity on that.”
Witness: “There is no way someone can access an account unless they have the password, or unless there is software that can break into the account without a password — people can hack accounts.”
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
