In an application filed under certificate of urgency, Mr Sifuna has asked the tribunal to halt the implementation of a February 11 party resolution that ousted him and to suspend ongoing disciplinary proceedings initiated by ODM.
He says the party has embarked on “an irregular and fatally flawed process for a predetermined disciplinary action” against him, despite earlier tribunal directions that the dispute be resolved internally.
Sifuna moved to the tribunal after ODM chairperson Gladys Wanga wrote to him last week asking him to respond to misconduct allegations and appear before a disciplinary panel.
He argues that the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution removing him from office was unlawful and violated his right to a fair hearing.
“The impugned resolution was made without notifying me of any allegations and without giving me an opportunity to defend myself,” Mr Sifuna states in his supporting affidavit.
The dispute stems from a February 11 NEC meeting where ODM resolved to remove him as secretary-general on grounds of alleged misconduct. Mr Sifuna contends the matter was not even listed on the meeting agenda and that he was neither notified nor heard before the decision.
He says the move breached the party constitution and national laws governing fair administrative action.
Documents filed at the tribunal shows that the meeting was convened by ODM executive director via a WhatsApp notice on February 8, with an agenda focused on routine party business, including confirmation of previous two minutes, reports, coalition developments and preparations for the National Delegates Convention.
“I could not attend the meeting because I had concerns that my security was at risk, given information conveyed to me by certain party members which information I do verily believe was true. I duly called and gave my apologies to the executive director of ODM and notified him that I was not in a position to attend the meeting,” he says.
After the initial fallout, Sifuna moved to the tribunal, but his case was struck out in March for lack of jurisdiction, with directions that the dispute be handled through ODM’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM).
Following that ruling, he wrote to the party proposing arbitration under Article 88 of the ODM constitution. He forwarded names of three arbiters. However, the party rejected the request.
In a letter dated April 2, Ms Wanga said arbitration could only be pursued after exhaustion of internal mechanisms, insisting the matter should proceed through the party’s disciplinary process.
“We are unable to accede to your client’s request for arbitration… this matter ought to be referred to the Party’s IDRM process where your client may defend himself,” the party told Sifuna’s advocates.
On the same day, ODM issued Sifuna with a notice to show cause, detailing multiple allegations of gross misconduct and giving him four days to respond.
The charges include contradicting party positions in media appearances, issuing inconsistent public statements, engaging in unsanctioned political initiatives, and failing to attend key party meetings.
But Mr Sifuna now argues that the disciplinary process is flawed and predetermined, accusing the party of acting in bad faith.
He claims the notice to show cause is “illusory” because it simultaneously invites him to respond while fixing a hearing date for disciplinary action.
“It purports to give me an opportunity to show cause whether or not disciplinary action should be taken against me, while concurrently requiring me to attend a hearing for said disciplinary action, thereby rendering the notice to show cause a superfluous, illusory and ineffective process,” he states, terming the process unfair.
He further accuses the party of delaying for nearly two months before outlining allegations against him, and of failing to provide clear particulars of the charges.
In his application, the senator is seeking orders to stay both the NEC resolution and all disciplinary proceedings arising from the show-cause notice.
He also wants the tribunal to bar ODM and the Registrar of Political Parties from implementing or gazetting his removal pending the determination of the dispute.
“The complainant is apprehensive that unless stopped, the respondent, which is publicly funded, will embark upon the aforesaid irregular and fatally flawed process for a predetermined disciplinary action against the complainant and continue to implement an unlawful resolution by publishing it in the Kenya Gazette and thus waste public funds,” his lawyers argue in the application.
The case sets the stage for a renewed legal battle between the outspoken secretary general and his party leadership, with the tribunal now tasked with determining whether to intervene.
The tribunal certified the application as urgent and set it down for hearing on April 9 at 2:30 pm, directing the respondents to file responses.
