Lissu sparks legal debate over witness’s education in treason case

As part of the questioning, Mr Lissu asked the witness about his secondary school qualifications, including the grades he achieved in the Form Four examinations. This line of questioning was strongly opposed by the prosecution, prompting a legal argument over its relevance. The court intervened and ruled in favour of the prosecution’s objection.

Mr Lissu faces a treason charge, accused of making statements intended to intimidate the government of the United Republic of Tanzania. He is alleged to have vowed on April 3, 2025, via social media, to block elections.

He’s accused of uttering; "…we say we will stop the elections, incite rebellion… this is the way to achieve change… we will disrupt the elections… we will provoke seriously…"

The trial is being heard by a three-judge panel led by Justice Dunstan Ndunguru, with Justices James Karayemaha and Ferdinand Kiwonde, at the High Court’s Dar es Salaam registry.

The second prosecution witness, Police Inspector John Kaaya, serves in the Cyber Crime Investigation Unit, Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), in Dar es Salaam.

During the cross-examination, Mr Lissu asked:

Lissu: “Have you ever attended primary school?”

Witness: “Yes.”

Lissu: “When?”

Witness: “From 1989 to 1995.”

Lissu: “Which schools?”

Witness: “I attended Nganyeni Marangu Primary School and Lyakirimu Primary School, Marangu, Moshi, Kilimanjaro.”

On secondary education:

Lissu: “Have you ever attended secondary school?”

Witness: “Yes, from 1996 to 1999 at Lyakirimu Secondary School.”

Lissu: “What division did you obtain in Form Four?”

At this point, the prosecution, led by Senior State Attorney Ajuaye Zegeli, objected, arguing that the question was irrelevant under Section 167 of the Tanzania Evidence Act (TEA). The objection was supported by Senior State Attorney Nassoro Katuga, who emphasised that private details such as examination results are protected and unrelated to the witness’ ability to give evidence.

Responding to the objection, Mr Lissu insisted that the witness’ education was relevant, particularly in assessing his suitability to serve as a police officer, citing Police General Orders (PGO) 53(10) and 54(1), which require secondary school education for recruitment and promotion within the force. Mr Lissu argued that understanding the witness’ educational background was essential to evaluate his competence and credibility.

"The witness was extensively questioned about his qualifications in his testimony. It is important to know if he meets the standards for a police officer; if he scored zero in his division, he would not be suitable," Mr Lissu argued.

He further contended that the prosecution’s reliance on Section 167 of TEA was misplaced, because the witness’s education directly affects his credibility and professional qualifications.

"They cannot claim this evidence is irrelevant. To be a police officer and to be promoted, one must have the required education. I am seeking to understand what type of witnesses the prosecution has brought in terms of their education and expertise," Lissu said.

In response, Senior State Attorney Katuga maintained that the objection was about the division obtained, not the level of education, and that the latter was not in dispute. He added that PGO provisions cited by Mr Lissu refer generally to education, not to the exact grades, and that specific results are protected under privacy laws.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the prosecution’s objection, limiting Lissu’s questioning to the level of education attained by the witness, without delving into specific grades.

"Even the Police General Orders only refer to the level of education, not the detailed results," said Justice Ndunguru in his ruling, after which Lissu continued his cross-examination, asking various other questions of the witness.