Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has secured a crucial temporary reprieve after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) barred the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) from executing a resolution to remove him as the party’s secretary-general.
The tribunal certified Mr Sifuna’s application as urgent and suspended the implementation of a resolution passed by ODM’s National Executive Committee on February 11, 2026 during a meeting in Mombasa.
The orders also prohibited the party and the Registrar of Political Parties from publishing the contested decision in the Kenya Gazette, effectively freezing the move pending an inter-partes hearing.
'I'm still ODM Secretary-General'
Additionally, the tribunal directed ODM and the Registrar to file and serve their responses within seven days, scheduling the matter for mention on February 26, 2026, to confirm compliance and issue further directions.
This ruling marks the first formal judicial intervention in a rapidly escalating internal party dispute that erupted on Wednesday after ODM announced that its top decision-making organ had resolved to remove Mr Sifuna from office.
Busia Woman Representative Catherine Omanyo had been appointed as acting secretary-general in his place.
Acting ODM Secretary -General and Busia Woman Representative Catherine Omanyo.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
According to tribunal filings, the announcement was made during a press conference and later posted on the party’s official social media platforms.
Mr Sifuna petitioned the tribunal seeking urgent injunctive relief, arguing that his removal was unlawful and procedurally flawed.
In his supporting affidavit, he contends that the resolution was reached without due process, violating both the party constitution and the law.
He told the tribunal that his removal was not listed as an agenda item for the meeting where the decision was made, that he was never notified of any complaints or allegations against him, and that he was not issued a notice to show cause.
Orengo: Don't be cheated, Sifuna is the ODM secretary-general
He further stated that he was denied an opportunity to defend himself—a mandatory step under ODM’s constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Citing Article 74 of ODM’s constitution, Mr Sifuna noted that while the National Executive Committee has the authority to remove an office bearer, it must first grant the affected official an “adequate opportunity” to respond to allegations.
He maintains that this safeguard was disregarded, rendering the resolution unlawful and procedurally unfair.
His case also relies on Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which mandate that administrative decisions be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. He argues that ODM’s actions failed on all three counts.
Mr Sifuna further informed the tribunal that ODM had swiftly appointed the deputy secretary-general as acting secretary-general and scheduled a National Delegates Convention—steps he warned could irreversibly alter the party’s leadership structure before the legality of his removal is adjudicated.
This urgency, he asserted, justified immediate tribunal intervention to preserve the status quo.
In its ruling, the tribunal, chaired by Gad Gath, agreed that the matter was urgent and granted interim relief pending a full hearing.
The stay on implementation means the February 11 resolution remains ineffective for now, while the prohibition on gazettement prevents formalizing the decision through the Registrar of Political Parties.
In his affidavit, Sifuna explained that he skipped the Mombasa meeting where the resolution was passed after receiving information that his security was at risk.
He stated that he duly notified the party’s executive director and submitted his apologies—a fact he cites to counter any suggestion that his absence constituted defiance or misconduct.
He further argues that the party has already made a final decision against him, making internal dispute resolution mechanisms ineffective or illusory in the circumstances.
For that reason, he asked the tribunal to exempt him from the requirement to exhaust the internal party processes before seeking external intervention.
