The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has blocked the implementation of any outcome from ODM’s internal disciplinary process seeking to remove Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna as secretary-general, pending the determination of his complaint.
The tribunal declined to stop the ongoing internal dispute resolution mechanism (IDRM), but ordered that any decision arising from the process shall not take effect until the case is heard and determined.
The decision preserves the tribunal’s authority while allowing the ODM’s disciplinary structures to proceed, setting the stage for a full hearing of the dispute pitting Mr Sifuna against his party leadership.
“We find that it is necessary that we issue orders to preserve the adjudicatory authority of the tribunal. We decline to stop any IDRM or dispute proceedings involving the complainant between the complainant and the first respondent (ODM),” said the tribunal.
ODM Secretary General Edwin Sifuna address a Linda Mwananchi politcal rally at Mazembe Grounds in Nakuru City on April 19, 2026.
Photo credit: Boniface Mwangi | Nation Media Group
“However, we direct that the outcome of any IDRM or proceedings as between the complainant and the first respondent shall not take effect pending the hearing and determination of this complaint,” it directed.
The orders mean that while ODM may proceed with its internal disciplinary process, it cannot enforce any decision against Mr Sifuna until the tribunal resolves the dispute.
The case arose from a February 11 National Executive Committee resolution by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) 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 disputes the accusations and argues that the process leading to his removal was unlawful and violated his right to a fair hearing.
He moved to the tribunal seeking to halt both the NEC resolution and any disciplinary proceedings initiated through a notice to show cause.
He also sought to block any gazettement of his removal by the Registrar of Political Parties pending the hearing of the case.
ODM opposed the application and insisted the dispute should be handled within its internal mechanisms, arguing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction at this stage.
The party maintained that the February resolution merely triggered a disciplinary process and was not a final decision, urging the tribunal to allow its structures to run their course.
However, the tribunal chaired by Gad Gathu rejected ODM’s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction.
It found that the question of whether Mr Sifuna had properly invoked the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanism was contested and could not be resolved without examining evidence.
“The contentions raised require analysis of facts and evidence and therefore fall outside the scope of a preliminary objection,” the tribunal ruled.
The panel noted that Mr Sifuna had written to the party on April 1 seeking internal resolution, while ODM disputed whether that step met the threshold required under the law.
On the request for conservatory orders, the tribunal said it was not required at this stage to make final findings on the merits of the case.
ODM Secretary General 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.
Instead, it only needed to determine whether Mr Sifuna had established a prima facie case warranting intervention.
The tribunal found that the issues raised, including whether his rights were violated and whether the disciplinary process was lawful, required a response from the ODM party.
It concluded that the complaint met the threshold for a prima facie case and justified interim protection.
“The question of whether the complainant’s rights were violated calls for rebuttal from the respondent,” the tribunal said.
In preserving the dispute, the tribunal also considered the risk that the case could be rendered nugatory if interim orders were not granted.
It held that the term extends beyond actions that are worthless or futile to include those that could undermine the effectiveness of legal proceedings.
The matter will be heard on June 9 at 2:30 pm. The dispute marks a fresh legal battle between Sifuna and ODM after an earlier case was struck out for failure to exhaust internal dispute mechanisms.
Following that ruling, Mr Sifuna wrote to the party seeking arbitration, but ODM rejected the request and directed him to its disciplinary process.
Choosing to stay in ODM and fight to the bitter end is seen as a viable option for Mr Sifuna, but it is full of risks of being isolated within the party and possibly denied a nomination ticket in the run-up to the 2027 polls. The legal battle is also likely to fuel internal hostility against his alleged defiance and indiscipline.
Under ODM’s constitution, the disciplinary committee has powers to hear and recommend sanctions ranging from reprimand to expulsion, subject to ratification by higher party organs.
