In brief
Tundu Lissu was sentenced to four years in prison on November 6, 2026, after the Dar es Salaam High Court convicted him of incitement under Section 390 of the Penal Code. The decision came after a prolonged treason trial in which the prosecution failed to prove his intention to intimidate the government. Heavy police security surrounded the court and key parts of the city during the judgment announcement.
Tundu Lissu, the national chairman of Tanzania’s opposition party CHADEMA, was sentenced to four years in prison on Friday, Nov. 6, 2026, after the High Court at Dar Es Salaam’s Sub‑Registry found him guilty of incitement for urging the public to disrupt the 2025 general election.
The sentence ended a 576‑day treason trial that began earlier this year. Lissu had initially faced a treason charge, but the court acquitted him when the prosecution could not prove that his statements were intended to intimidate the government. The trial ended with the conviction on a lesser offense under Section 390 of the Penal Code, as allowed by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
According to Xinhua, the court noted that Lissu’s remarks “urging the public to prevent and disrupt the upcoming national election” satisfied the elements of incitement. The High Court Judge Dunstan Ndunguru read the verdict, stressing that the legal framework permits the taking of a lesser charge even when the original treason charge had not been separately included.
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.
High Court Judge Dunstan Ndunguru delivered this statement as he read the judgment to the court and the gathered public.
Lissu was arrested on April 9, 2025, in Mbinga District of the Ruvuma Region. Because treason is a non‑bailable offence in Tanzania, he remained in custody for the duration of the trial.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses, many of whom testified that Lissu’s comments had inspired them to participate in activities aimed at disrupting the forthcoming election. In his defence, Lissu acknowledged that he had made the statements but rejected the prosecution’s framing as treasonous, arguing that they constituted legitimate political discourse. He told the court that he was merely exercising his democratic right to speak about the electoral process.
Police deployed a heavy security presence around the court and key areas of Dar Es Salaam as the verdict was announced. Armed officers patrolled major roads leading to the court, posted in strategic positions around the Posta and Kisutu districts, and reinforced key junctions such as Ubungo, Mwenge, and Buguruni, as well as Bus Rapid Transit stations. Despite the presence of forces, supporters of CHADEMA and members of the public gathered outside the courthouse, while traffic remained orderly.
Xinhua also noted the court’s decision to convict Lissu on the lesser charge alone, citing the court’s consideration of evidence from both the prosecution and the defence. The judge explained that the criminal procedure allowed for a conviction on a lesser offence when the evidence was sufficient under Section 319 of the CPA.
The case has drawn attention internationally. The BBC, in a correction to an earlier report that had suggested Lissu had been convicted of inciting treason, clarified that the conviction was for incitement. This correction underscores the importance of accurate reporting when political trials are closely watched by civil‑society observers.
Political analysts suggest that Lissu’s sentencing could dampen opposition momentum ahead of the 2025–2026 election cycle. Critics argue that criminalising opposition leaders for expressing dissent may undermine democratic norms and erode public trust in the electoral process. Supporters of CHADEMA view Lissu’s conviction as politically motivated, warning that it could further polarise the political landscape while scheduling the next general elections updates the context for debate.
The ruling raises open questions about the extent to which political speech is protected in Tanzania’s legal system. While the court affirmed that incitement to disrupt an election is punishable, observers wonder whether the legal distinction between treason and incitement might be applied selectively. The broader implications for the country’s democratic constitution and its relationship with the opposition remain to be seen.
