Explainer: Was Farah Maalim’s expulsion by Wiper Party lawful?

Dadaab Member of Parliament Farah Maalim was on Wednesday expelled from the Wiper Democratic Movement following his outrageous remarks about Gen Z and President William Ruto’s one-term presidency.

But did the party follow the right procedure?

Farah sparked outrage after declaring that Ruto would serve beyond one term, using offensive language to dismiss critics of the Ruto administration.

His remarks, described as divisive and disrespectful to young Kenyans, also drew widespread condemnation from various quarters.

“When you see everything progressing and then some fools say, ‘Kasongo Ruto must go.’ To hell with those who say that! Is he sitting in your mother’s or father’s seat? He is sitting in our seat, and we will re-elect him; we will deliver 99 per cent or even 100 per cent. We are saying Ruto will stay until 2032,” Farah said during a recent address, using further unprintable terms to describe youthful Kenyans critical of the administration.

It's not the first time the MP has used offensive words against government critics.

The MP has also faced backlash before for his incendiary remarks. In July 2024, he came under fire for suggesting that if he were Kenya’s leader, he would have dealt with youthful demonstrators with extreme measures, stating he could “even have killed 5,000 of them each day.”

His latest comments have however drawn widespread condemnation from various quarters, with many accusing him of promoting divisive rhetoric and disrespecting young Kenyans, prompting the Wiper party to expel him.

The Political Parties Act stipulates that a party member can only be expelled for violating the party’s constitution, and only after being afforded a fair hearing through internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

Section 14 of the Act reads: “A person may be expelled from a political party if that person contravenes any of the provisions of the constitution of the political party.”

It further adds, “A political party shall, before expelling a member, afford such member a fair opportunity to be heard in accordance with the internal party disputes resolution mechanism prescribed in the constitution of the political party.”

The Wiper Democratic Movement’s disciplinary constitution elaborates on this process, mandating that disciplinary proceedings should follow strict rules of fairness.

The party’s Disciplinary Committee is tasked with investigating complaints, offering the accused a chance to defend themselves, and submitting findings to the National Executive Committee (NEC). The NEC then has the power to uphold, vary, or overturn the disciplinary recommendations, ensuring procedural safeguards.

The party’s disciplinary rules specify that members may face sanctions, including reprimands, fines, suspensions, or expulsion, for contravening the party’s principles. Offences include public disloyalty, promoting the interests of rival parties, or engaging in corruption.

Farah’s remarks were deemed a violation of these principles.

In announcing the expulsion, Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka stated that Farah’s comments had undermined the party’s values and the rights of Kenyans.

“For the avoidance of doubt, Farah Maalim, who until now has been the Wiper party’s deputy, stands expelled from the Wiper Democratic Movement for violating the constitution and the rights of Kenyans,” Kalonzo said.

The Wiper constitution requires the Disciplinary Committee to notify the accused of the allegations, conduct a hearing where the member can be represented, and submit its findings for NEC approval.

“The Party Disciplinary Committee shall accord a fair hearing to
all parties appearing before it. The Disciplinary Committee shall give parties equal opportunity to represent themselves either in person or through their legal representative,” it reads.

“The Party Disciplinary Committee shall report its findings and
decision to the NEC for adoption. The NEC may confirm, vary or substitute the finding and decision of the Disciplinary Committee on Appeal by the concerned
 Member.”

The NEC is the highest decision-making body on disciplinary matters and has the final say on any penalties, including expulsion.

The party’s Disciplinary Committee handles complaints and allegations of misconduct, but its decisions are not final. The committee investigates the matter, provides the accused members with an opportunity to defend themselves, and makes recommendations to the NEC. The NEC then reviews these recommendations and may confirm, vary, or overturn them.

The NEC’s mandate includes:

• Reviewing findings and recommendations: After the Disciplinary Committee concludes its investigation and hearings, the NEC assesses whether the findings align with the party constitution and applicable laws.

• Imposing penalties: The NEC has the power to impose penalties, including reprimands, suspensions, fines, or expulsion. The severity of the penalty depends on the gravity of the misconduct.

• Handling appeals: Members dissatisfied with the Disciplinary Committee’s decision can appeal to the NEC, which has the authority to amend or nullify the decision.

• Ensuring fairness: The NEC is required to ensure that disciplinary actions comply with both the Wiper constitution and the principles of natural justice.

The Wiper constitution also allows the NEC to appoint an ad hoc committee to handle disciplinary matters in counties, branches, or polling stations.

However, any recommendations by lower committees must still be reviewed and approved by the NEC to ensure consistency and compliance with party rules.

Farah's expulsion highlights broader issues of accountability within political parties.

While the Wiper Party cited his controversial remarks as grounds for the decision, the key question remains whether due process was followed as outlined in the Political Parties Act and the party’s internal rules.