Inside Sifuna's fight to nullify ODM's removal

ODM Party Leader Oburu Oging'a with embattled Secretary General Edwin Sifuna.[File, Standard]

Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has asked the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal to declare the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) resolution removing him as Secretary General unlawful, arguing that both the decision and subsequent disciplinary action against him are legally flawed

Through his lawyer, Senior Counsel Isaac Okero, Sifuna told a bench led by acting chairperson Gad Gathu that the National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution of February 11, 2026, was passed without giving him a chance to defend himself, rendering it invalid.

“It is common ground that no opportunity had been afforded the complainant to defend himself before pronouncement of the impugned resolution,” Okero submitted, adding that this violated Article 74 of the party constitution as well as principles of fair administrative action.

He argued that the NEC acted beyond its mandate under Article 74(2), terming the decision “ultra vires”, and further said it contravened the Constitution of Kenya, the Fair Administrative Action Act, and the rules of natural justice.

Okero further told the tribunal that the disciplinary process initiated thereafter was built on what he described as a defective foundation.

He faulted the show-cause letter issued to Sifuna, saying it was structured to suggest a predetermined outcome.

“The letter proposed a meaningless show-cause process and set the hearing date even before the cause is shown,” he said, terming it procedurally unfair.

He also questioned the legality of the NEC disciplinary panel, arguing that its formation had not been demonstrated to comply with ODM’s constitution and that its composition raised reasonable suspicion of bias.

“The objective circumstances of bias become matters of undisputed fact, leaving a strong likelihood of predetermination,” he submitted.

Invalid resolution

Okero insisted that an invalid resolution could not anchor any disciplinary process, urging the tribunal to strike out the proceedings in their entirety.

ODM, through lawyers Samuel Makori, Tom Kajwang and Ken Amondi, opposed the application, arguing it was premature and that internal party mechanisms should be allowed to proceed without interference.

Makori maintained that Sifuna had already been granted an opportunity to respond and had engaged the disciplinary process through written submissions.

“A party cannot claim violation of the law while being allowed to participate in the process,” he said.

Amondi invoked the doctrine of exhaustion, arguing that the senator could not halt ongoing internal proceedings before they were completed.

Kajwang urged restraint, warning against judicial interference in party affairs.

“It would be very dangerous for this tribunal to supervise that process. This is a matter of internal democracy,” he said.

Earlier, the tribunal dismissed Sifuna’s urgent application seeking to cross-examine ODM affiant Halima Daro, finding no sufficient basis for oral evidence.

ODM had opposed the request, saying there were no materially disputed facts requiring cross-examination.

The tribunal set June 18, 2026, as the date for judgment.