In brief
Tundu Lissu, the national chairman of the main opposition party CHADEMA, was sentenced to four years in prison on November 6 after a 576‑day treason trial that was closed with an acquittal on treason but a conviction for incitement. The High Court in Dar Es Salaam ruled that Lissu’s statements urging the public to disrupt the 2025 general election amounted to incitement under Section 390 of the Penal Code, a finding followed by heavy police security around the court. Lissu later described the incitement charge as manufactured, making the case a focal point for debates over democratic accountability.
Tanzania’s main opposition party, CHADEMA, saw its national chairman, Tundu Lissu, sentenced to four years in prison on Friday for incitement, after a 576‑day treason trial was closed and found him innocent on the treason charge. The High Court in Dar Es Salaam delivered the sentence on November 6, condemning Lissu for statements that the court said were aimed at disrupting the country’s 2025 general election.
The trial, which began in early 2025, saw Lissu arrested on April 9 in Mbinga District of Ruvuma Region and remained in custody throughout the proceedings. Under Tanzanian law treason is a non‑bailable offence, a factor that kept the opposition leader detained during the almost two‑year investigation and court proceeding.
The court’s verdict stemmed from the court’s examination of evidence from 17 prosecution witnesses and Lissu’s own testimony. Prosecutors argued that his speeches and radio broadcasts urged citizens to halt or disturb the upcoming election, an assertion the court recorded as evidence of incitement. Lissu, who had pleaded that his remarks were legitimate political discourse, declined to admit the alleged criminal intent.
Judge Dunstan Ndunguru, presiding over the case, noted that Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act “empowers courts to convict an accused person of a lesser offence even when it was not separately included in the charge.” He further explained that the court had considered the totality of the evidence before concluding that Lissu’s statements fell under the lesser offence of incitement as defined in Section 390 of the Penal Code.
"The court is satisfied that, under Section 319 of the CPA, the accused committed the lesser offence of incitement under Section 390 of the Penal Code," wrote Judge Ndunguru.
Security for the court session was intense. Armed police officers were posted around the Posta and Kisutu districts of Dar Es Salaam, as well as along key routes to the courthouse. Officers also established positions at major transit hubs such as Bus Rapid Transit stations and at junctions in Ubungo, Mwenge, and Buguruni, ensuring that traffic remained orderly even as supporters and members of the public gathered in the vicinity.
Amid the tense atmosphere, some CHADEMA supporters stood outside the court, hoping to demonstrate that the sentencing was politically motivated. Meanwhile, the court proceeded with its judgment, marking a significant moment for the country’s civic institutions and political pluralism.
During the proceedings, Lissu protested the new charge, stating that it had been fabricated. He said, "The offence of incitement is one that you, honourable judges, have manufactured."
This statement underscored the opposition’s view that the charges were designed to silence dissent rather than address genuine threats to national security. The court’s decision to convict on the lesser charge of incitement rather than treason was presented, however, as an application of existing law, a process that the judiciary described as an adherence to procedural statutes.
The case highlights the fragility of democratic safeguards in Tanzania. A high‑profile political figure, charged with treason and convicted only for incitement, suggests a legal mechanism that can be used to curb those perceived as challenging the ruling establishment’s interests. For voters, it sends a signal that the 2025 general election may face heightened regulatory scrutiny, especially for opposition leaders who are vocal about electoral reform.
With the sentencing, the judiciary has reinforced the legal framework under which political speech is scrutinised. The emphasis on the Penal Code’s incitement provisions adds a layer to the ongoing debate on whether political discourse that challenges the status quo should be protected under democratic freedoms or treated as a national‑security concern.
International coverage, including from Reuters and the BBC, has brought additional attention to the case. While the Reuters report highlighted the court’s final judgement and the subsequent sentence, BBC coverage captured Lissu’s response, giving the broader press a window into the political context and the opposition’s perspective on the legal process.
In the wake of the ruling, CHADEMA faces the challenge of sustaining its influence in a political environment where legal mechanisms can be used to limit opposition participation. The sentence, combined with the intense security deployed during the court session, reflects wider tensions between government authorities and the opposition’s push for democratic reforms. For residents of Dar Es Salaam and the rest of Tanzania, the case underscores the pressing need for accountability and transparency at the intersection of law, politics, and public safety.
