Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has suffered an early setback in his latest legal challenge against his removal as Secretary-General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal declined to grant interim orders halting the party’s decision.
Although the Tribunal certified the matter as urgent, it declined to issue conservatory orders at the preliminary stage without first hearing all parties.
Instead, the Tribunal directed that the application be heard orally on July 9, 2026, when ODM and the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties are expected to appear.
The decision means that ODM’s National Executive Committee resolution of June 22, 2026, removing Sifuna from the position of Secretary-General, remains undisturbed for now.
The Tribunal also declined, at this stage, to restrain the Registrar of Political Parties from acting on the disputed resolution.
In the substantive complaint, Sifuna, who is represented by Senior Counsel Isaac Okero, is seeking a "declaration that the NEC resolution removing him from office is unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid."
He argues that the decision violated Article 74 of the ODM Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act and Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action.
Sifuna further contends that ODM’s Internal Dispute Resolution Panel acted outside its mandate by conducting disciplinary proceedings against him and recommending his removal.
He argues that the panel lacked jurisdiction, making both its recommendations and the subsequent NEC resolution legally unsustainable.
The Senator wants the Tribunal to "quash the panel’s findings and the NEC resolution, and to permanently bar ODM and the Registrar of Political Parties from implementing or gazetting any decision removing him from office."
He maintains that he was validly elected Secretary-General by ODM’s National Delegates Convention in December 2021, and that his tenure can only be terminated in accordance with the party constitution.
Sifuna also relies on an earlier PPDT decision, which nullified a previous attempt to remove him, arguing that the latest resolution is similarly founded on an unlawful and procedurally unfair disciplinary process.
ODM, through Advocate Samuel Makori, has filed a robust response opposing the complaint.
In a Replying Affidavit sworn by Halima Daro, the party’s Secretary for Special Interest Groups, ODM argues that Sifuna’s latest case is not a fresh complaint but an attempt to reopen issues already handled through the party’s internal processes and earlier Tribunal proceedings.
ODM’s position is that the earlier Tribunal decision did not bar the party from disciplining Sifuna.
The Party says the Tribunal expressly confirmed that ODM could proceed with a proper disciplinary process under its Constitution and the law.
The party further states that Sifuna was issued with a Notice to Show Cause, supplied with particulars, given time to prepare his defence, represented by lawyers, and invited to participate in the hearing.
ODM argues that he instead chose not to answer the allegations on their merits, and cannot now rely on that non-participation to claim that he was denied a fair hearing.
ODM also rejects claims that the "disciplinary panel lacked authority or was biased. The party says the panel only heard the matter and made recommendations, while the final decision was taken by the NEC."
ODM’s wider argument is that political parties must be allowed to enforce discipline, protect internal order and implement their constitutions without the Tribunal taking over their internal disciplinary mandate.
The Tribunal is expected to consider the application for interim orders after hearing all parties when the matter comes up on July 9.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google