Why Sifuna has opted to fight ODM in a protracted legal battle

The dispute escalated this week after ODM’s National Executive Committee (NEC) unanimously adopted recommendations of the party’s Internal Disputes Resolution Committee (IDRC) and endorsed Mr Sifuna’s removal from the powerful Secretary General position.

Acting Secretary General Catherine Omanyo announced that the NEC had considered the committee’s report and approved its recommendations, effectively ending Mr Sifuna’s tenure as the party’s SG and spokesperson.

ODM maintained that the disciplinary process followed the party constitution and was necessary to address conduct deemed detrimental to party unity and cohesion.

The accusations against Mr Sifuna include publicly contradicting official party positions, criticising ODM’s cooperation agreement with President William Ruto’s UDA party, engaging in political activities without authorisation and failing to attend key party meetings.

At the centre of the fallout is Mr Sifuna’s sustained opposition to the ODM-UDA Memorandum of Understanding, which he has repeatedly declared politically dead despite ODM leaders continuing to defend and promote the arrangement.

His critics within the party argue that his statements undermined collective decisions and weakened ODM’s bargaining position ahead of anticipated political realignments.

But rather than retreat, Mr Sifuna has chosen to fight.

Almost immediately after the NEC decision, Mr Sifuna's allies signalled their intention to challenge the move through legal mechanisms, arguing that the process was flawed and mirrored an earlier attempt to remove him that had already encountered legal obstacles.

Political analyst Arnold Maliba believes the appeal is less about the legal outcome and more about the political opportunities it creates.

“The appeal is political theatre—deliberate, calculated and strategic,” Mr Maliba says.

Read: The case against Edwin Sifuna: ODM trains guns on him anew

“It keeps the controversy alive. It forces ODM to justify its actions within the confines of the law. It buys him time. It keeps him in the headlines. It transforms what could have been a one-day story into a prolonged political conversation.”

According to Mr Maliba, every day the dispute remains unresolved works to Mr Sifuna’s advantage because it ensures he continues occupying political space while forcing ODM leaders to remain on the defensive.

“This isn't a courtroom battle alone. It is a battle for legitimacy, sympathy and leverage,” he says.

“The law becomes the stage. The tribunal becomes the theatre. Public opinion becomes the audience.”

That interpretation is shared by several observers who note that legal proceedings in Kenya’s political environment often serve both judicial and political purposes.

By challenging every procedural step, they say, Mr Sifuna can potentially slow down implementation of disciplinary actions while simultaneously presenting himself as a victim of internal party intolerance.

Political analyst Rachael Omollo argues that time may be Mr Sifuna’s most valuable asset.

“The legal processes are known to be lengthy and would buy him time to capitalise on his position as the Secretary General of the largest political party,” she says.

She notes that previous interventions by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) have demonstrated that disciplinary decisions can be delayed while legal questions are being considered.

By invoking constitutional safeguards and procedural fairness, she argues, Mr Sifuna can potentially keep the matter active for an extended period.

“It also allows him to shape the narrative. The intention is to keep the issue of suspension alive and frame himself as a victim of ODM internal struggles,” she says.

For Mr Sifuna’s supporters, the battle is about much more than a party office.

They argue that the dispute touches on fundamental questions of party democracy, freedom of expression and the right of elected leaders to disagree with their political parties without facing punishment.

Among the strongest defenders of Mr Sifuna is Vihiga Senator Godfrey Osotsi, who has himself faced disciplinary challenges within ODM, leading to his removal as ODM co-deputy party leader during a Special National Delegates Convention in March.

Mr Osotsi insists the process leading to Mr Sifuna’s removal was fundamentally flawed and therefore deserved to be challenged.

“It was simply a perverted attempt at using legal means to arrive at a political and unconstitutional outcome,” he says.

The senator argues that the Internal Disputes Resolution Committee acted as a predetermined instrument whose conclusions had effectively been decided before the hearings began.

“From the outset, the so-called Internal Disputes Resolution Committee was a biased tool of Sifuna’s tormentors from whom justice and independence was not expected,” he says.

He further claims that the committee convened improperly, provided inadequate notice and denied Mr Sifuna a fair opportunity to present his defence.

Sifuna's political future

According to Mr Osotsi, the NEC compounded those shortcomings by hastily ratifying the recommendations despite earlier legal concerns raised by both the PPDT and the High Court regarding disciplinary procedures.

“The Secretary General was subjected to a second round of public ridicule by twin kangaroo courts styling themselves as the Internal Disputes Resolution Committee and the National Executive Committee,” he says.

ODM leaders, however, reject those accusations.

Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo, who sits in the party’s National Executive Committee, maintains that Mr Sifuna was accorded adequate opportunity to respond to allegations levelled against him.

He notes that the Nairobi senator responded through his lawyer, Senior Counsel Isaack Okero, thereby satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

“He actually responded through his lawyers, and therefore, the question of procedural fairness has been taken care of. He was allowed to respond,” says Dr Amollo.

ODM insists that no official is above party rules and that disciplinary mechanisms exist to protect institutional integrity rather than target political opponents.

Party insiders argue that the disciplinary action was designed to restore discipline and cohesion at a time when ODM is preparing for crucial political negotiations ahead of the 2027 elections.

Yet analysts believe the legal route gives Mr Sifuna significant political advantages regardless of the eventual outcome.

Advocate Chris Omore describes the senator’s strategy as a calculated effort to create political breathing space.

“That breathing space allows him to continue engaging supporters, strengthen alliances within the broader opposition and assess whether his future lies inside ODM or beyond it,” he says.

According to Mr Omore, legal battles can become powerful political instruments even when victory is uncertain.

“For Sifuna, the courtroom becomes both a shield against immediate political consequences and a stage on which to present his version of events to party members and the wider public.”

Read: Oburu, Sifuna camps in battle to control  bases ahead of 2027

That assessment aligns with Mr Maliba’s argument that the dispute is ultimately about political positioning.

“Whether he eventually wins or loses the appeal may not even be the primary objective,” Mr Maliba says.

“By the time the curtain falls, he may already have extracted every ounce of political value the process could offer. That's how politics is played.”

The legal battle also allows Mr Sifuna to avoid making immediate decisions about his political future.

Political analyst Dismas Mokua argues that the court process creates a middle path between surrender and rebellion.

“By remaining within ODM while contesting the decision, Sifuna retains access to party structures and avoids triggering circumstances that could jeopardise his Senate seat,” he says.

Mr Mokua argues that an immediate departure from ODM could weaken Sifuna’s emerging Linda Mwananchi movement and diminish his influence nationally.

“Instead, the legal battle allows him to maintain leverage while keeping several future options open,” he says.

According to the pundit, Mr Sifuna now has three broad choices: reconcile with ODM leadership, mobilise a wider rebellion against the party establishment, or negotiate a political settlement through legal and political channels.

The court process, he says, postpones those difficult decisions while preserving his relevance.

Mr Sifuna has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of ODM’s growing cooperation with the Kenya Kwanza administration in the recent months.

His Linda Mwananchi movement has increasingly attracted leaders and supporters uncomfortable with what they perceive as ODM’s gradual accommodation of the government.

The senator has also built considerable support among younger voters who identify with his anti-establishment messaging and criticism of political deals.

That growing popularity has strengthened perceptions among his allies that the disciplinary process is about more than internal party discipline.

Mr Osotsi argues that Mr Sifuna’s prominence among younger and reform-minded voters has made him a target.

“The crusade against Sifuna gained new momentum as Kenya prepares to mark the second anniversary of the June 25, 2024 Gen Z protests, in which Sifuna and other progressive legislators stood out against state excess,” he says.

ODM leaders dismiss such claims and insist the dispute should not be viewed through a political persecution lens.

Nevertheless, the prolonged standoff has exposed widening ideological divisions within the party over its relationship with the Kenya Kwanza administration and the direction ODM should take heading into the next election cycle.

Analysts warn that the dispute could have broader implications for the party’s image as a prolonged public battle risks projecting internal instability at a time when ODM is expected to play a central role in future coalition negotiations.

Yet for Mr Sifuna, the uncertainty may be politically useful.

As long as the dispute remains active, he continues to command attention, mobilise supporters and influence national political conversations.

Analysts maintain that may explain why he has chosen the courtroom rather than the exit door.

[email protected]

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.