The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has defended its internal disciplinary process of members accused of misconduct, urging a tribunal to step back as Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna seeks urgent intervention to block his removal as secretary-general.
Appearing before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) on Monday, the party’s advocates argued that the dispute should be resolved within its structures, insisting the ongoing process is lawful and already in motion.
ODM told the tribunal that after its earlier ruling shielding the SG from ouster, Sifuna went on to convene a parallel and rival national conference, conduct it cited as part of the grounds that informed the decision to subject him to disciplinary proceedings.
“We have placed before this Tribunal evidence that after your ruling, the complainant convened a parallel and rival conference, conduct that goes directly to the disciplinary concerns now under process,” ODM’s counsels submitted.
Sifuna, through Senior Counsel Isaac Okero, approached the tribunal early April seeking to halt the implementation of a February 11 resolution and stop any disciplinary proceedings arising from a notice to show cause issued earlier this month.
He also wants the tribunal to bar ODM and the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties from gazetting his removal pending the hearing and determination of the case.
The dispute stems from a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting on February 11, where ODM resolved to remove him over alleged misconduct, including contradicting official party positions in media appearances.
He was also accused of issuing inconsistent public statements, engaging in unsanctioned political initiatives, such as Linda Mwananchi, and failing to attend key party meetings.
Sifuna maintains the decision was unlawful and violated his right to a fair hearing, saying he was neither notified of the allegations nor given an opportunity to respond.
“The impugned resolution was made without notifying me of any allegations and without giving me an opportunity to defend myself,” he states in court filings.
After the fallout, he moved to the tribunal, but his earlier case was struck out in March for failing to exhaust internal party mechanisms.
Following that ruling, Sifuna wrote to ODM invoking arbitration under the party constitution, proposing a panel of arbiters to resolve the dispute.
The party rejected the proposal. In a letter dated April 2, ODM said arbitration could only follow exhaustion of its internal processes and directed him to the disciplinary pathway.
On the same day, ODM issued a notice to show cause, listing allegations of misconduct and summoning him to appear before a disciplinary panel.
Sifuna now argues the process is flawed and predetermined. “It purports to give me an opportunity to show cause while concurrently requiring me to attend a disciplinary hearing, rendering the process illusory,” he states.
But ODM told the tribunal the case is premature and an attempt to derail an ongoing internal process.
“The matter before you is not strictly about removal but whether a lawful internal process should be allowed to run its course,” the party submitted.
ODM argued that its constitution provides a structured dispute resolution framework, with disciplinary proceedings forming part of the internal mechanism.
It maintained that the February 11 resolution was not final but merely triggered internal processes, including possible disciplinary action.
The party further told the tribunal that Sifuna had already submitted himself to the process by seeking particulars of the charges and requesting more time, undermining his challenge.
Lawyers for ODM also raised a preliminary objection, arguing the tribunal lacks jurisdiction until internal mechanisms are fully exhausted.
They urged the panel to remit the matter back to the party’s disciplinary organ and decline to intervene at this stage.
“The correct pathway is not in doubt. It is ongoing, constitutionally anchored, and must be respected,” ODM submitted.
The party also accused Sifuna of re-litigating issues previously addressed by the tribunal and attempting to circumvent internal processes.
“This is litigation by apprehension, not based on a final decision,” its lawyer Samuel Makori said, adding that no justiciable dispute has crystallised.
In response, Sifuna’s advocate Isaac Okero insisted the tribunal has jurisdiction, arguing that Sifuna had already attempted internal dispute resolution as required by law.
He pointed to a letter dated April 1 as evidence of a good faith effort to resolve the dispute internally, which he said ODM ignored.
Counsel further argued that the disciplinary panel is not lawfully constituted and cannot form the basis of a valid process.
“There is no lawful organ known as an internal dispute resolution panel constituted in the manner claimed,” he told the tribunal.
He maintained that the earlier tribunal decision did not determine the dispute on merit, but only struck it out on procedural grounds.
Mr Okero urged the tribunal to grant conservatory orders to preserve its authority and prevent what he termed an unlawful process. The ruling is scheduled on May 5, 2026.
