In a remarkable turn of events, the Kisutu Magistrate Court dismissed the prosecution’s preliminary objection for an open court proceedings in the Tundu Lissu false information criminal case whose punishment is death by hanging. This article revisits the reasons the Court had applied to reach its decision and what political ramifications lurk ahead in the case.
Senior Resident Magistrate, Geofrey Mhini, ruled on 6th May 2025 that the case concerning false information will proceed in an open court. Chronicling a five point bulletin, Hon. Mhini ruled as follows:
“1. That a preliminary hearing under the provisions of section 192 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap.20 R.E.2022] is required to be conducted in open court and in the presence of the accused person and there is no provision of law which requires a preliminary hearing to be conducted remotely.
2. That, under section 192 and section 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap.20 R.E.2022] a preliminary hearing cannot be conducted remotely as the accused person must be present in court and the Rules on virtual proceedings the Judicature and Application of Laws (Remote Proceedings and Electronic Recording) Rules, 2021 G.N. No. 637 of 2021 do not apply in a preliminary hearing proceedings, and do not waive the requirement of the law on appearance of the accused person in a preliminary hearing.
3. That, as per the definition of the word “open court” under section 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap.20 R.E.2022], it was unlawful for the Court to order that a preliminary hearing be conducted virtually
as virtual proceedings are not suitable in this case, and are contrary to the law.
4. That, under section 192 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap.20 R.E.2022] at the conclusion of preliminary hearing, depending on facts disputed or admitted there may be tendering of evidence by the prosecution and Rule 5 (3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws (Remote Proceedings and Electronic Recording) Rules, 2021 G.N. No. 637 of 2021 forbids the Court to conduct proceedings remotely by way of video conference where there is tendering of evidence.
5. That, the Court did not make an order in the presence of the parties that proceedings will be conducted virtually, thus under the “functus officio” rule the court is “functus officio” to proceed with the proceedings virtually.” End of quotation.
In the Tundu Lissu false information case, the Kisutu Magistrate Court’s allowance of an open court in preliminary proceedings reflects a balancing act between legal principles, security concerns, and constitutional rights. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Legal Basis for Open Proceedings.
Constitutional Guarantee:
Tanzanian law (Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution) requires criminal trials to be held publicly unless exceptional circumstances (e.g., national security risks) justify closed proceedings. The court emphasized that even in serious cases like treason or false information, the default presumption is openness to uphold transparency and public trust in the judiciary.
Once the preliminary proceedings have been heard in an open court with the accused Tundu Lissu physically brought in a court with public attendance, the police claim the matter to proceed remotely under the ruses of “national security” will hold no water. The police will have no concrete evidence to back their flimsy claims.
Besides, the peace and tranquility that will prevail during the open court preliminary proceedings will confirm beyond reasonable doubt it is the police not the general public that foment unrest and unnecessary violence!
Since the police aren’t behind the preliminary proceedings cannot abandon them and plead the Court to proceed virtually. Here is a concise summary of the genesis of the preliminary proceedings:
In the Tundu Lissu false information criminal case, the prosecution initiated the preliminary proceedings by formally bringing the charges and requesting a virtual hearing. However, Lissu’s defense team objected to this approach, insisting on his physical presence in court. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Prosecution’s Role:
The State Attorney’s office, represented by Senior State Attorney Tawab Issa, filed the charges and initially sought to conduct the preliminary hearing via video link. The prosecution argued that remote proceedings were appropriate for logistical or security reasons .
2. Defense’s Objection:
Lissu’s defense team, led by Advocate Peter Kibatala and Dr. Rugemeleza Nshala, opposed the virtual format. They emphasized that Tanzanian law requires the accused’s physical presence during critical procedural steps, such as signing documents and understanding charges, to ensure fairness under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Court’s Ruling:
Magistrate Geofrey Mhini dismissed the prosecution’s request for remote proceedings and ordered Lissu’s physical appearance on May 19, 2025. The court stressed that preliminary hearings necessitate the accused’s presence to uphold transparency and procedural rights.
Summary of Court Ruling
Thus, while the prosecution initiated the proceedings by formally charging Lissu and proposing a virtual format, the defense’s objections and the court’s subsequent ruling shaped how the preliminary phase unfolded. The case highlights tensions between the state’s procedural preferences and the defense’s insistence on constitutional safeguards.
Magistrate’s Discretion:
While the court initially permitted virtual hearings for security reasons (as Lissu is remanded), it maintained that proceedings must remain accessible to the public. Virtual platforms were intended to serve as a means for openness, allowing remote public observation despite logistical constraints but not a replacement of open proceedings.
2. Security vs. Transparency.
False Information as a serious Offense:
False Information charges carry grave implications, and the prosecution argued for heightened security measures. However, the court resisted pressure to close proceedings entirely, asserting that security concerns (e.g., risks of unrest) did not override the constitutional mandate for public trials.
Public Access:
Even during virtual hearings, the court ensured proceedings were broadcast or accessible to journalists and observers, aligning with legal standards for transparency. This contrasted with closed-door military tribunals sometimes used in sensitive cases.
3. Lissu’s Defense and Public Pressure.
Demand for Physical Presence:
Lissu and his legal team rejected virtual participation, arguing it undermined his right to confront witnesses and engage directly with the court. They framed physical, open proceedings as essential to procedural fairness.
Political Context:
Lissu’s status as a prominent opposition figure, now the chairperson of the most popular political party in Tanzania – Chadema, exposed to an assassination attempt with sixteen bullets piercing his body (and his subsequent exile in Belgium after the bungled election of 2020 where he was a presidential candidate with a credible chance of bagging the presidency) drew international scrutiny.
The court’s insistence on openness aimed to dispel perceptions of political persecution and align with democratic norms. On 9th May 2025, on the first day of hearing of the preliminary proceedings, the Kisutu Magistrate Court was deluged with international observers and no commotion or any whiff of insecurity was notable contrary to the Attorney General’s specious claims to the contrary!
4. Contrast with the False Information Case.
In the separate false information case, Magistrate Mhini explicitly ordered physical hearings and invited public attendance, reinforcing the principle of open trials. This decision indirectly pressured and influenced the treason case proceedings to follow similar transparency standards, even if held virtually. That remote proceedings cannot supplant open court proceedings but can overlap them.
5. Judicial Precedent.
Tanzanian courts have historically upheld open trials for high-profile cases unless compelling security evidence is provided. In Lissu’s case, no such evidence justified full closure, leading the magistrate to prioritize constitutional obligations over unproven speculative risks that amounted to at best misplaced paranoia or at worst a hidden political agenda.
Key Takeaways.
The Kisutu Magistrate Court allowed open proceedings in the false information case to comply with constitutional requirements and counter allegations of opacity. While virtual hearings were initially proposed for practicality, the court maintained public access to safeguard legitimacy.
Lissu’s push for physical presence further underscored the symbolic and legal importance of open trials in politically charged cases. The rulings reflect Tanzania’s judiciary navigating tensions between security, procedural rights, and democratic accountability.
Tundu Lissu was reported on hunger strike to protest how the proceedings were being undertaken now this favourable ruling ought to end and focus on his defense.
This ruling has restored faith in the Kisutu Magistrate Court that has been often lambasted for snobbish decisions particularly when the government is an alleged trespasser.
The attendance of the general public has once and for all terminate the prosecution unfounded allegations that insecurity was an upshot in an open courtroom. Future political cases of this level of sensitivity will not be subjected to opacity but light will shine for the interests of justice for all.
The treason case is not making any headway indicating the challenges the prosecution is facing to make the charges stick. I will diligently be following its development and discuss the aftermath accordingly.
The author is a Development Administration specialist in Tanzania with over 30 years of practical experience, and has been penning down a number of articles in local printing and digital newspapers for some time now.
