The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) has handed ODM a significant victory after ruling that the party is entitled to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against its Secretary General, Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, the tribunal directed Sifuna to submit himself to the party’s disciplinary process, finding that ODM’s Constitution grants the party authority to discipline its members and officials through its established internal mechanisms.
The decision followed arguments by Senior Counsel T.J. Kajwang, advocate Ken Amondi and advocate Sam Makori for ODM, while Senior Counsel Okero appeared for Sifuna.
At the heart of the dispute was whether ODM could continue disciplinary proceedings that had been initiated against Sifuna through a notice to show cause dated April 2, 2026.
The tribunal found that Article 78 of the ODM Constitution expressly establishes a disciplinary framework for handling allegations of misconduct by party members and officials.
“Article 78 of the ODM Constitution allows enforcement of disciplinary processes within the party,” the tribunal held.
The panel further ruled that the ongoing disciplinary proceedings before ODM’s disciplinary committee should be allowed to continue without interference.
“There is an ongoing process initiated by ODM through the disciplinary panel which should be allowed to continue, and the complainant can raise all the issues therein and only come to the Tribunal thereafter,” the judgment stated.
In submissions that were ultimately reflected in the tribunal’s findings, ODM advocate Ken Amondi had argued that the complaint was premature because the disciplinary process had not been concluded.
“What is before this Tribunal is a disciplinary process against the complainant which can be dealt with by the panel constituted by the ODM Party. The complaint is therefore premature,” Amondi submitted.
Advocate Sam Makori similarly urged the tribunal to allow the party’s internal structures to function without outside interference.
“The ODM Party must be given room to exhaust its internal mechanisms,” Makori argued.
Senior Counsel T.J. Kajwang also defended the party’s autonomy in handling disciplinary matters.
“The Tribunal must give latitude and breathing space to political parties in disciplinary proceedings so that political parties are built as institutions,” Kajwang submitted.
The tribunal agreed with that position, emphasizing that discipline is an essential component of political party governance.
“Political party discipline is obligatory and parties have a responsibility to enforce discipline within their constitutive instruments and the relevant legislation,” the tribunal noted while citing previous judicial authorities.
The panel further observed that Sifuna’s objections largely concerned the conduct of the disciplinary process, including allegations of bias and bad faith, issues which it said should first be addressed before ODM’s disciplinary organs.
“Such issues are best raised during the disciplinary proceedings before the relevant party disciplinary organ. He should thus subject himself to the disciplinary process,” the tribunal ruled.
The tribunal also found that there had been a genuine attempt by the parties to resolve the dispute through ODM’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM), thereby satisfying the legal requirement before approaching the tribunal.
However, the tribunal found fault with an earlier resolution of ODM’s National Executive Committee (NEC) that purported to remove Sifuna as Secretary General.
According to the tribunal, Sifuna had not been notified that his conduct would be discussed during the NEC meeting held on February 11, 2026.
“There is no evidence that the complainant was notified that the meeting would discuss his conduct,” the tribunal stated.
For that reason, the tribunal declared the NEC resolution invalid only to the extent that it purported to remove Sifuna from office without affording him a fair hearing.
“We therefore find that the complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office,” the panel held.
Nevertheless, the tribunal stressed that the invalidation of the removal resolution does not prevent ODM from continuing disciplinary proceedings against the senator.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal ruled that ODM “is at liberty to institute and conclude disciplinary proceedings against the complainant in accordance with the First Respondent’s constitution and the law.”
The judgment therefore leaves ODM’s disciplinary case against Sifuna fully intact while requiring that any action taken against him be undertaken through a process that complies with the party constitution and the principles of fair hearing.
