Dar es Salaam. Kulwa Maduhu, one of the lawyers representing the Chadema national, Tundu Lissu, wept in the dock whilst giving evidence about being prevented from seeing Mr Lissu in remand.
In his evidence, Mr Maduhu, who has albinism, claimed he was implicitly barred by an officer from Ukonga Prison Service from meeting Mr Lissu due to his albinism.
He gave this account whilst being cross-examined by Mr Lissu with various questionnaire questions regarding his claims in a case he filed alongside two colleagues at the High Court, Main Registry in Dodoma.
Constitutional Case No. 7300/2026 was filed by lawyers Maduhu, Nashon Nkungu, and Paul Kisabo against the Attorney General (AG), the Commissioner General of Prisons (CGP), the Officer in Charge of Ukonga Prison in Dar es Salaam, and Mr Lissu himself.
However, the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) subsequently applied for and was granted permission to join the suit as an interested party.
In the suit, the lawyers challenge restrictions imposed by the Ukonga Prison boss whenever they visit the facility to consult their client, Mr Lissu, held in remand over treason charges.
The petitioners, identifying as Mr Lissu's legal advisors, complain against the third respondent's (Ukonga Prison boss) failure to enforce Regulation 13 of the Prison Regulations, which guarantees legal advisors confidential, unhindered consultations with clients.
Mr Maduhu alleges that on various occasions, prison officials prevented them from meeting and consulting Mr Lissu or delivering essential case documents, with the Prison boss claiming instructions came from the Commissioner General of Prisons.
Despite Nkungu and Kisabo securing opportunities to speak and discuss legal matters with Mr Lissu, they lacked privacy, as prison officers stood within earshot of their discussions.
Among other reliefs, they request the court to declare that officers eavesdropping on client discussions violates Regulation 13 of Prison Regulations, statutory law, and the Constitution regarding fair hearing rights and privacy, demanding private access to their client.
The Attorney General raised a preliminary objection claiming the suit is invalid, arguing petitioners possess alternative remedies for sought reliefs, thus breaching Section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (Bradea).
A three-judge panel hearing the suit- Amir Mruma (presiding), Dr Angelo Rumisha, and Dr Everist Longopa- recommended hearing the objection alongside the main application arguments.
However, Mr Lissu requested the court to order petitioners and the third respondent, the Ukonga Prison boss, to appear for cross-examination via questionnaires.
The cross-examination commenced on Monday, July 20, 2026, when the court convened in Dar es Salaam for that purpose.
During questioning, Mr Lissu began examining lawyer Maduhu.
According to the examination, Mr Maduhu was initially turned away from the facility on grounds that his name was omitted from Mr Lissu's approved visitors' list.
Even after Mr Lissu submitted a revised list including Mr Maduhu and other unlisted lawyers, Mr Maduhu was turned away a second and third time, whereas other lawyers excluded from the list were admitted.
When Mr Lissu asked if he was the sole lawyer excluded, Mr Maduhu affirmed, adding that on one occasion, an accompanying colleague was admitted while he was instructed to leave for being unlisted.
"Is there any other lawyer who received similar annotations on my legal team list, barring them from seeing me because their name was missing from the list given to the Officer in Charge?" asked Mr Lissu.
Mr Maduhu: No other lawyer.
Mr Lissu: Is there any legal procedure regarding these matters?
Mr Maduhu: I encountered this at Ukonga. No such procedure ever existed.
Mr Lissu: What wrong have you committed against Ukonga's Officer in Charge?
Mr Maduhu: I do not know him, nor do I know how I offended him.
Mr Lissu: When you were permitted to see me, was Mr Juma Mwaibako acting as prison boss?
Mr Maduhu: Yes.
Mr Lissu: Was Andrew Shabani the person who barred you?
Mr Maduhu: That is correct.
Mr Lissu: Do you have a skin condition? Albinism?
Mr Maduhu: Correct.
Mr Lissu: In this country, is there discrimination against persons with albinism?
Mr Maduhu: That is completely true.
Mr Lissu: So the lawyer barred is you, who has albinism?
Mr Maduhu: I am the only person rejected; therefore, I was discriminated against by implication.
Mr Lissu: Did you choose to have albinism?
Mr Maduhu: I did not choose it, yet I was discriminated against like this (bowing his head and shedding tears).
However, when cross-examined by Senior State Attorney Stanley Kalokola regarding whether he documented these allegations of albinism-based discrimination in his written affidavit, he replied that he had not written them.
The case continues today, Tuesday, July 21, 2026, where Mr Lissu will continue questioning remaining petitioners before being cross-examined by other lawyers in the suit.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
