The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) has allowed ODM to proceed with disciplinary action against Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna over claims of contradicting party positions, skipping meetings and engaging in unsanctioned political activities.
This even as the tribunal nullified a party resolution that sought to remove him from office without a hearing.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the panel held that ODM's disciplinary machinery should be allowed to run its course, but found that the party breached Mr Sifuna's right to a fair hearing when its National Executive Committee (NEC) purported to remove him as secretary-general in February.
It issued a declaration that the February 11 NEC resolution was invalid only to the extent that it removed Sifuna from office without a fair hearing.
The decision hands both sides a partial victory in a dispute that exposed tensions within ODM and tested the balance between party autonomy and members' procedural rights.
"The complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office," ruled the tribunal.
At the same time, it said ODM was "entitled to institute disciplinary proceedings" against Mr Sifuna and ordered that any interim orders stopping the process be lifted.
The dispute arose from an NEC meeting held on February 11, 2026, where party leaders passed a resolution expressing concern over what they described as growing indiscipline among senior officials.
The resolution specifically targeted Mr Sifuna, with the NEC resolving to remove him from office with immediate effect and have Deputy Secretary-General Catherine Omanyo act in the position pending the election of a substantive replacement.
Mr Sifuna challenged the move before the tribunal, arguing that the process was unlawful, breached the ODM constitution and denied him an opportunity to defend himself.
ODM opposed the complaint and maintained that internal party mechanisms should be allowed to handle the dispute.
The tribunal found that notices circulated before the NEC meeting did not indicate that Sifuna's conduct or removal would be discussed.
According to the ruling, the agenda shared with members covered routine party business, including confirmation of minutes, implementation of party programmes, coalition matters and preparations for the National Delegates Convention.
"The conduct of the complainant or his removal from office was not on the agenda," the tribunal said.
It further noted that ODM had produced no evidence showing Sifuna was informed of any change to the agenda or given an opportunity to prepare a response before the resolution was adopted.
"There is no evidence that the complainant was notified that the meeting would discuss his conduct," the tribunal said.
However, the panel stopped short of invalidating the entire NEC resolution.
Applying the principle that an unlawful portion of a decision can be separated from valid parts, it held that only the section removing Sifuna from office was invalid.
"The only invalid part of the resolution would be the part that purported to remove the complainant from office without according him a fair hearing," the tribunal ruled.
The tribunal also rejected Sifuna's attempt to stop ODM's disciplinary proceedings initiated through a notice to show cause dated April 2, 2026.
It said Article 78 of the ODM constitution expressly establishes a disciplinary committee with powers to hear and determine cases involving alleged misconduct by party members and officials.
"Discipline in political parties is essential for the proper functioning of the political party, the exercise of political rights and overall democracy," the tribunal said.
The panel added that courts and tribunals should be reluctant to interfere with internal disciplinary mechanisms unless those processes have been completed.
In regard to Sifuna’s complaints about the composition of the disciplinary panel, alleged bias and procedural irregularities, it directed him to raise the same before the party's disciplinary organs first.
Should he be dissatisfied with the outcome, the tribunal said, the law still provides him with a right of appeal.
ODM's argument that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because internal dispute resolution mechanisms had not been pursued, was also rejected.
The tribunal found that Sifuna had made a genuine attempt to invoke the party's internal dispute resolution process through a letter sent by his lawyers on April 1 proposing arbitration, an invitation ODM rejected the following day.
The tribunal concluded that a bona fide attempt at internal resolution had been made and declared itself properly seized of the dispute.
