The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has been forced back to the drawing board in its bid to remove Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal struck out his case but blocked implementation of the contested decision.
In a finely balanced ruling, the Tribunal upheld ODM’s preliminary objection and declined jurisdiction, but at the same time barred the party from effecting Sifuna’s removal until internal dispute resolution mechanisms are exhausted.
The outcome delivers a split verdict that leaves both sides claiming partial victory while prolonging the leadership contest within the political outfit.
For ODM, the ruling validated its core legal argument that disputes must first be handled internally. The five-member tribunal, chaired by Gad Gathu, held that it “has no power to exempt a party” from attempting internal dispute resolution under Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act.
That finding handed interim party leader Oburu Odinga a significant procedural win as he seeks to consolidate control of the party following a turbulent transition.
But the decision simultaneously preserves Sifuna’s grip on office, at least for now.
The tribunal directed that the disputed National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution purporting to remove him “should not be filed” with the Registrar of Political Parties pending internal resolution of the dispute.
That effectively freezes any attempt to formalise his ouster, ensuring he remains in position as the party navigates internal processes.
“The complaint is otherwise struck out,” the tribunal ruled. Crucially, the panel declined to examine whether Sifuna’s removal was lawful, saying doing so would prejudice the parties after finding it lacked jurisdiction.
Instead, it directed both sides to return to ODM’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms and pursue the matter in good faith.
“The complainant (Sifuna) and the first respondent (ODM) shall attempt to resolve the dispute through the ODM’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism (IDRM). Parties are encouraged to submit to IDRM in good faith,” said the tribunal.
It continued: “As a show of good faith, the removal of Sifuna as Secretary General of IDM should not be filed with the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties pending the attempt at IDRM and without prejudice to the ODM's right to institute or conduct disciplinary proceedings in strict compliance with this Constitution and all applicable laws, or the right of any party to approach this tribunal for redress as provided for in the Political Parties Act.”
The tribunal emphasised that even where internal processes appear ineffective, parties must at least demonstrate an attempt to trigger them.
“It matters not who is aggrieved,” the panel said, underscoring that the legal threshold is an attempt, not full exhaustion.
The dispute stems from a February 11 NEC meeting that announced Sifuna’s removal with immediate effect, a move he challenged as unlawful and procedurally unfair.
He argued he was not given notice of the allegations against him or an opportunity to defend himself, calling the process a “procedural ambush.”
ODM, however, maintained that the decision merely initiated disciplinary proceedings and insisted its internal structures were capable of handling the matter.
The tribunal sided with ODM on the jurisdictional question, finding Sifuna had bypassed mandatory internal steps.
Yet it also leaned on its inherent powers to prevent possible abuse of process by halting implementation of the contested decision.
