Court rules in favour of Lissu’s lawyers over prison restrictions

The High Court has ruled in favour of lawyers representing Chadema chairman Tundu Lissu in a constitutional petition challenging restrictions on their consultations with him at Ukonga Prison, finding that prison officers violated regulations protecting lawyer-client confidentiality. In a judgment delivered on Friday, October 16, 2026, the court found that the lawyers had proved their claims that prison officers could overhear their legal consultations with Lissu, who is being held on treason charges. The court ruled that the practice contravened Regulation 13 of the Prisons Regulations, 1968, and undermined the conditions necessary for preparing Lissu’s defence. It ordered prison authorities to allow his lawyers to meet and consult him privately, while maintaining security supervision without compromising the confidentiality of their communications. The court also directed the Commissioner General of Prisons to issue and circulate a circular to all prison heads across the country within 60 days, instructing them to protect prisoners’ and remand inmates’ right to consult their lawyers without their conversations being overheard. The judgment was delivered by Justice Amir Mruma on behalf of Justices Angelo Rumisha and Evaristo Longopa. The constitutional petition, numbered 7300/2026, was filed by lawyers Kulwa Maduhu, Nashon Nkungu and Paul Kisabo, who identified themselves as Lissu’s legal advisers in the criminal cases against him. They were represented by John Seka. The respondents were the Attorney General, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Officer-in-Charge of Ukonga Prison and Lissu. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS), which joined the proceedings as an interested party, was represented by Ferdinand Makore. Lawyers challenge restrictions The lawyers challenged restrictions they said had been imposed by the Officer-in-Charge of Ukonga Prison whenever they sought to consult Lissu in the facility’s remand section. They argued that the prison authorities had failed to comply with Regulation 13, which provides for confidential consultations between prisoners or remand inmates and their legal advisers. Mr Maduhu told the court that prison officers had, on several occasions, prevented the lawyers from meeting Lissu or delivering important documents relating to his cases. He said the Officer-in-Charge had informed them that the restrictions were based on instructions from the Commissioner General of Prisons. Mr Nkungu and Mr Kisabo told the court that, even when they were allowed to discuss legal matters with Lissu, prison officers stood close enough to overhear their conversations. The lawyers asked the court to declare that the conduct violated Regulation 13 and constitutional and legal provisions guaranteeing fair trial rights and privacy. The Attorney General raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petition was improperly filed because the applicants had other legal avenues through which to obtain the relief they sought. The objection was based on Section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, commonly known as BRADEA. Court rejects government objection Justice Mruma dismissed the preliminary objection, ruling that the applicants had no alternative legal remedy capable of providing the relief sought under the circumstances other than a constitutional petition. On the merits, he said the court had considered the pleadings and submissions from both sides and was satisfied that the lawyers had proved their claims. He explained that Regulation 13 allows prison officers to maintain visual supervision while inmates consult their lawyers but requires them to remain beyond hearing distance. The judge acknowledged that prisons were security institutions where supervision was necessary to prevent escapes and the introduction of prohibited items. However, he said the regulation sought to balance security requirements with the rights of people in custody. Citing decisions from courts in Kenya, Zambia and South Africa, he underscored the importance of protecting confidential professional communications between lawyers and their clients. The respondents confirmed that prison officers were present during consultations for security reasons but failed to demonstrate that they stood far enough away to prevent them from hearing the discussions. The court noted that no evidence had been presented establishing the distance between the officers and the lawyers. On documents brought into the prison, Justice Mruma said authorities could inspect them for security purposes but were not permitted to read them to establish their contents or confiscate them. “Therefore, we find that the consultations between the second and third applicants and their client took place in circumstances in which prison officers could hear them, contrary to the provisions of Regulation 13 of the Prisons Regulations,” he said. The judge added that Lissu’s decision to conduct his own defence did not extinguish his right to consult his lawyers on legal matters. Missing name on visitors’ list not enough The court also considered Mr Maduhu’s complaint that he had been denied access to Lissu because his name was not on a visitors’ list provided by the Chadema leader. Justice Mruma ruled that the omission of his name was not, in itself, sufficient legal grounds to deny him access because the requirement was not prescribed by law. He noted that Mr Maduhu had demonstrated that other lawyers and individuals whose names were not on the list had been allowed to meet Lissu. Referring to Article 13(6) of the Constitution, the judge said people facing criminal proceedings, particularly those that could result in severe punishment, must have access to proper legal representation and confidential consultations with their lawyers. He also cautioned against the misconception among some officials within the justice system that they had the authority to determine whether suspects were guilty. Under Article 107A(1) and (2) of the Constitution, he said, the administration of justice is vested in the courts. Although the court had no records establishing the precise extent to which Lissu had been affected, Justice Mruma said the evidence showed that prison conditions and restrictions on communication with his lawyers had undermined his rights. The court consequently found that allowing prison officers to remain within hearing distance during consultations violated Regulation 13 and was inconsistent with several constitutional provisions, including Articles 13(1), 13(3), 13(6)(a), 15, 16(1), 22, 26(1) and 29(2). In its final orders, the court directed the Commissioner General of Prisons to issue and circulate the circular to all prison heads within 60 days, requiring them to comply with Regulation 13 and safeguard prisoners’ and remand inmates’ right to communicate privately with their lawyers.