THE prosecution has requested an adjournment in the case against Chadema's national chairman Tundu Lissu, to get more time to persuade his legal team to agree to have the case heard online.

Job Mrema, a senior state attorney, said in court that the adjournment is sought to allow Lissu’s legal team, which consists of over 20 lawyers, to look at the matter on how to proceed with the case, where Lissu is facing charges of treason and publishing false information.

In response to defense claims that Lissu was prevented from confessing before a priest, after the death of Pope Francis was announced while being incarcerated at Ukonga Prison in Dar es Salaam, the attorney said that the claims were baseless.

The Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court did not have the jurisdiction to handle such matters, he said, urging the court to dismiss the defense side arguments.

He said the prosecution's request for a 30-day adjournment, as outlined under Section 225(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) was justified as it imposes limitations on cases when the accused is on bail, had he been granted bail on April 10, 2025.

Lawyers Peter Kibatala and Jeremiah Mtobesya opposed this request, while observers in court noted that they failed to specify which section of the law was violated or to inform the court of the time needed to consult with their client.

Regarding the defense’s claim that Lissu was prevented from confessing and that his relatives were obstructed from attending the trial, the state attorney argued that these issues were outside the Kisutu Court’s jurisdiction.

Any dissatisfaction with the conduct of public servants should be addressed by the High Court for legal review, he said, intimating that Lissu had failed to adhere to the prison's established procedures for communication with his lawyers.

This includes the requirement to send written requests for visits, he said, insisting that Lissu did not fulfill his obligation to write a letter, nor did his lawyers submit the necessary requests for visitation.

In response to the defense’s objections to an online hearing, the attorney intoned that the defense team had confused the concept of a public court with an online court.

The defense had failed to specify which court they considered public, and that the proper procedures for document submission were outlined in Government Notice (GN) No. 637 of 2021, he asserted.

On the issue of Lissu’s transfer to another prison, he insisted that the Prisons Service had the authority to determine where an accused person should be held and that no rights had been violated in this regard.

He demanded that the court approve the 30-day adjournment to allow the defense team more time to consult with their client and potentially persuade him to accept an online hearing of his case.

Lissu’s defense team, led by advocate Mpare Mpoki, rejected the adjournment request, arguing that the law mandates that both parties be notified within seven days if the case is to be heard online, a requirement that had not been fulfilled.”

"We should proceed with the case in an open court, as the accused has refused the online hearing. He may feel he has not been properly consulted, which could explain his refusal," he stated.

Dr Nshala Rugemeleza, a top legal affairs official for the opposition party, also argued that the police and Prisons Service had failed to follow proper procedures, including the claim that prisoners must list visitors.

He disputed advocate Mrema’s assertions and emphasized that no regulation requires such listings, while advocate Kibatala, who visited Lissu on April 22, said he waited over three hours before being connected to his client by phone. This is a violation of Lissu’s rights to communicate with his lawyers, he added.

After hearing the arguments, magistrate Geoffrey Mhini adjourned the case until May 6, 2025, when a decision will be made regarding the request for an online hearing.

Lissu is accused of publishing false statements on April 3, 2025, via YouTube, claiming that Chadema candidates were disqualified from last year’s local government elections based on instructions from the President.