The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has dismissed Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna’s challenge to his fresh removal as ODM Secretary-General, upholding the disciplinary process that ended his eight-year tenure.
The Tribunal sitting in Nairobi found that ODM’s National Executive Committee was entitled to establish a special panel and that Mr Sifuna was given a fair opportunity to answer allegations before his June 22 removal.
The decision follows an earlier judgment on June 18, when the Tribunal found that ODM had breached Mr Sifuna’s right to a fair hearing before its February 11, 2026 decision removing him from the SG position.
It nevertheless allowed the party to begin fresh disciplinary proceedings under its constitution and the law. The June 18 judgment also held that the remaining concerns raised by the NEC about discipline were lawful and could support disciplinary proceedings against Mr Sifuna or another party official.
The first removal was invalidated because of the hearing process, while the second followed a process that the Tribunal has now found lawful and fair.
The case arose from the February 11 ODM National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution to remove Mr Sifuna as secretary-general over alleged misconduct.
The party accused him of contradicting official positions, skipping key meetings and engaging in unsanctioned political activities, including the Linda Mwananchi initiative.
Mr Sifuna disputed the accusations and argued that the process leading to his removal was unlawful and violated his right to a fair hearing.
According to court filings, tensions began in July 2025 when ODM’s Central Committee convened in Karen after Sifuna appeared on a TV program.
The party reviewed his remarks declaring the ODM-UDA Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) "dead," noting contradictions with earlier resolutions.
Edwin Sifuna addresses delegates during the People’s Delegate Convention organised by the Linda Mwananchi faction of the ODM at Ufungamano House in Nairobi on March 27, 2026.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The late party leader Raila Odinga, who chaired the meeting, reportedly emphasized the “critical nature” of the secretary-general’s role in upholding party positions, stressing that public statements should align with formal resolutions.
ODM issued Mr Sifuna with a notice to show cause, requiring a response to allegations of gross misconduct within four days. He sought further particulars, saying the notice did not identify the statements complained of, party positions allegedly contradicted or video material relied upon.
ODM supplied further particulars and moved the hearing. The Tribunal found that this gave Mr Sifuna about three weeks to prepare a substantive response.
His advocate appeared before the ODM panel, raised objections to its authority and composition and withdrew without addressing the allegations on their merits.
The panel rejected the objections in its June 19 determination and recommended Mr Sifuna’s removal. On June 22, ODM’s NEC adopted the recommendation and removed him from office with immediate effect.
Mr Sifuna returned to the Tribunal, arguing that the special panel had no place in ODM’s constitutional structure. His case was that Article 78 created a disciplinary committee with authority to receive, hear and determine cases involving party members, including gross misconduct.
He argued that the NEC could not use its general power to create another body performing functions reserved for that committee. His lawyers described the panel as an “amorphous and unconstitutional body” and challenged its jurisdiction, composition and alleged bias.
ODM disputed that position. It argued that the party constitution gave the NEC broad power to create committees for specified tasks, while it also allowed the NEC to act concerning party officials.
Ruling in Mr Sifuna’s complaint, the Tribunal accepted that argument. “In the absence of a clear provision preventing the NEC from delegating its powers to a subcommittee, the party could establish the panel to assist the NEC,” the Tribunal found.
The Tribunal also rejected Mr Sifuna’s fair-hearing complaint. It acknowledged that the initial four-day period was short, but said the extension, additional particulars and postponed hearing cured that problem.
“The complainant was afforded the opportunity and declines to take up cannot be heard to say he was denied a hearing,” the Tribunal said, adding that he appeared through an advocate of his choice.
The Political Parties Registrar wrote about the need to give Sifuna an opportunity to be heard and later said the removal complied with the Political Parties Act and ODM’s constitution.
