Nairobi Senator Edwin SifunaThe Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has upheld the removal of Edwin Sifuna as Secretary-General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), dismissing his third attempt to challenge his ouster from the position.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, the Tribunal found that ODM’s National Executive Committee (NEC) was entitled to establish a panel to hear the disciplinary case against Sifuna and that he was accorded a fair hearing during the process.
Sifuna had argued that disciplinary matters involving party members were specifically reserved for the Disciplinary Committee established under Article 78 of the ODM Constitution.
He contended that the panel that handled his case was an unconstitutional body with no authority to recommend his removal.
The Tribunal, however, rejected the argument, finding that Article 51(3)(f) of the ODM Constitution gave the NEC broad powers to establish committees for specified tasks and determine their terms of reference.
“In the absence of a clear provision preventing the NEC from delegating its powers to a subcommittee, then it cannot be faulted for creating the panel that heard the complainant’s (Sifuna) case,” it held.
The Tribunal also found that the NEC retained administrative and supervisory powers over party committees, including the Disciplinary Committee, and that the existence of the committee did not prevent the NEC from appointing another body to assist it in carrying out its functions.
However, the Tribunal noted that ODM’s NEC had not explained why it bypassed the Disciplinary Committee when it resolved on March 4, 2026, to constitute the panel.
“Whether by design or default, the respondent’s (ODM) NEC disregarded the jurisprudence principle,” the Tribunal said, but added that this did not make the panel unlawful.
The Tribunal also considered whether Sifuna had been accorded a fair hearing during the disciplinary proceedings.
Sifuna had challenged the process on grounds that he was given only four days to respond to the notice to show cause, a period that fell over the Easter weekend. He also argued that the allegations were insufficiently particularised and raised allegations of bias against two members of the panel.
The Tribunal found that while the initial four-day period was short, the issue was subsequently addressed after Sifuna sought further details about the allegations.
According to the Tribunal, the panel extended the period, while ODM supplied further particulars and annexures on April 14.
The hearing, initially scheduled for April 10, was also moved to April 20. The Tribunal said this gave Sifuna about three weeks from the notice to show cause to prepare a substantive response.
It also noted that Sifuna appeared before the panel through Senior Counsel Isaac Okero, who raised objections to its jurisdiction and alleged bias but subsequently withdrew from the proceedings.
Sifuna did not participate in the proceedings thereafter.
“The complainant did not participate in the proceedings any further. This was a personal choice, not attributable to being denied a hearing,” the Tribunal said.
On the allegations of bias, the Tribunal said Sifuna should have fully prosecuted the objections before the panel.
It concluded that he had been given an adequate opportunity to defend himself.
“A party who is afforded that opportunity and declines to take up cannot be heard to say he was denied a hearing,” the Tribunal ruled.
“It therefore follows that the complaint does not succeed. For the reasons we have given, we hereby dismiss the complaint.”
The dispute stems from the panel’s June recommendation that Sifuna be removed from office. ODM’s NEC subsequently adopted the recommendation on June 22 and removed him with immediate effect.
ODM was represented by lawyers Ken Amondi, Sam Makori and TJ Kajwang during the proceedings.
The fallout between Sifuna and ODM leadership has seen the party institute disciplinary measures over alleged gross misconduct and disagreements over his conduct and positions on party affairs.
The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties subsequently reviewed the process and, on July 9, confirmed that the removal complied with the Political Parties Act and ODM’s constitution before updating the party records.
Sifuna then moved to the Tribunal to challenge both the NEC decision and the subsequent action by the Registrar.
This marked his third attempt to challenge his removal from office, following previous proceedings in which the Tribunal found that he had not been accorded a fair hearing before an earlier decision to remove him.
The Tribunal subsequently allowed ODM to commence fresh disciplinary proceedings, provided the process complied with the law and the party’s constitution.
The latest decision leaves the outcome of the disciplinary process that led to Sifuna’s removal as Secretary-General intact.
