Tribunal Allows ODM To Take Disciplinary Action Against Sifuna

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has cleared the way for the Orange Democratic Movement to pursue disciplinary proceedings against Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna, while striking down an earlier National Executive Committee resolution that sought to remove him as Secretary General without giving him a fair hearing.

Delivering the judgment on Thursday, Tribunal Chair Gad Gathu, sitting with the panel, ruled that the NEC process was procedurally defective. The tribunal found that Sifuna received no proper notice that his conduct would be discussed, and the tentative agenda circulated before the meeting contained no reference to any disciplinary matter concerning him.

“The complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office,” the tribunal stated. It further observed that there was no evidence Sifuna had been informed of any last-minute change to the agenda that would have allowed him to appear and respond to the allegations against him.

The ruling, however, drew a clear distinction between the flawed procedure used by the NEC and the broader question of whether the party has the right to discipline one of its own. The tribunal noted that Sifuna had not claimed he should be completely exempt from accountability. Instead, his challenge focused on how the process was conducted.

Concerns he raised about the notice to show cause dated April 2, 2026, or allegations that the disciplinary panel might be biased, were deemed matters best ventilated inside the party’s own structures rather than grounds to block proceedings outright.

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

In a significant affirmation of political party autonomy, the panel directed Sifuna to submit himself to the ongoing disciplinary process. It emphasised that parties are entitled to enforce their constitutions and internal rules, provided they do so in accordance with the law.

“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.

The decision leaves ODM free to restart or continue proper disciplinary action against the senator. Should Sifuna be dissatisfied with the outcome of those internal proceedings, the tribunal reminded him that he still has recourse to approach it again.

While the tribunal invalidated the NEC resolution to the extent that it purported to remove Sifuna without due process, it dismissed all his other prayers. The ruling therefore stands as a partial win for the senator on procedural grounds, but a clear green light for ODM to enforce discipline through the correct channels.

The judgment reinforces a simple principle: political parties must follow fair procedures when taking action against their members, but they retain the authority to hold those members accountable when the rules are properly observed.