Tribunal faults ODM over Sifuna removal, orders fair disciplinary process

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) has ruled that Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna was denied a fair hearing before a decision was made to remove him as Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), dealing a procedural setback to the party while allowing ongoing disciplinary proceedings to continue.

In a judgment delivered on June 18, 2026 by chairperson Gad Gathu, the tribunal found that ODM's National Executive Committee (NEC) failed to follow due process when it resolved to remove Sifuna from office.

The tribunal held that the decision-making process was flawed, particularly regarding notice, agenda setting and the senator’s opportunity to respond to allegations against him.

“The complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office,” the tribunal stated.

According to the ruling, there was no evidence that Sifuna had been informed beforehand that his conduct would be discussed during the NEC meeting at which the resolution was made.

The tribunal noted that the tentative agenda circulated before the meeting did not contain any item relating to disciplinary discussions concerning the senator.

“There is no evidence that the complainant was informed of any change in the agenda in the discussion of his conduct to enable him to appear accordingly,” the tribunal observed.

At the heart of the dispute was an NEC resolution that sought to remove Sifuna from his position as ODM Secretary General. However, the tribunal found that the resolution could not stand because it violated principles of procedural fairness.

“We therefore find that the complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office,” the tribunal reiterated.

The panel, however, emphasized that its findings related only to the manner in which the decision was reached and not to the substance of any disciplinary case against Sifuna.

It observed that the senator had not argued that he should be exempt from disciplinary proceedings altogether. Instead, he challenged the process used in reaching the decision against him.

The tribunal further held that concerns raised by Sifuna regarding the notice to show cause issued on April 2, 2026, allegations of bad faith, and claims of bias within the disciplinary panel should be addressed through ODM’s internal disciplinary mechanisms.

“These issues are best raised during the disciplinary proceedings before the relevant party disciplinary organ,” the tribunal ruled.

The judgment underscored the importance of party autonomy in managing internal affairs, provided such processes are conducted in accordance with the law and party constitutions.

In a significant directive, the tribunal ordered Sifuna to participate in the ongoing disciplinary process, noting that political parties have a right to enforce their internal rules and constitutions.

“Should he be dissatisfied with the disciplinary process outcome, the law still provides recourse to this tribunal,” the panel stated.

The tribunal also acknowledged that disciplinary proceedings against the senator were still ongoing and that no final outcome had been communicated during the hearing of the matter.

As a result, it declined to issue broad restraining orders that would have halted ODM's disciplinary process.

“For the avoidance of doubt, the First Respondent (ODM) is at liberty to institute and conclude disciplinary proceedings against the complainant in accordance with its constitution and the law,” the tribunal ruled.

In its final determination, the tribunal granted Sifuna a partial victory by declaring the NEC resolution invalid only insofar as it purported to remove him from office without affording him a fair hearing.

All other prayers sought by the senator were dismissed, leaving ODM free to proceed with disciplinary action, provided it adheres to due process requirements.