The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has ruled that Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna was not accorded a fair hearing before the decision to remove him as Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) was taken.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday by Tribunal Chair Gad Gathu on behalf of the panel, the tribunal found that the decision-making process at the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC) level was procedurally defective, particularly on notice, agenda setting, and the opportunity to respond to allegations.
“The complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office,” the tribunal stated.
The tribunal further held that there was no evidence that Sifuna had been notified that his conduct would be discussed during the NEC meeting held earlier.
It noted that the tentative agenda did not include any reference to disciplinary discussion concerning him.
“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 centre of the dispute was the NEC resolution, which sought to remove Sifuna from office.
The tribunal, however, found that the resolution could not stand in its entirety due to the breach of fair hearing principles.
“We therefore find that the complainant was not accorded a fair hearing prior to the resolution to remove him from office,” the tribunal reiterated.
However, the tribunal was careful to draw a distinction between procedural fairness and the merits of disciplinary action.
It noted that Sifuna had not argued that he should be entirely exempt from disciplinary proceedings, but rather challenged the manner in which the process was conducted.
The tribunal said such concerns—including claims that the notice to show cause dated April 2, 2026 was issued in bad faith, or that the disciplinary panel was biased—were issues best handled within the party’s internal mechanisms.
“These issues are best raised during the disciplinary proceedings before the relevant party disciplinary organ,” the tribunal held, emphasising the principle of party autonomy in internal governance.
It further directed that Sifuna must submit himself to the ongoing disciplinary process, noting that political parties are entitled to enforce their constitutions so long as they comply with the law.
“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 were still ongoing at the time of hearing, and that it had not been informed of their final outcome.
It declined to issue sweeping restraining orders that could interfere with internal party processes.
“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.
Ultimately, the tribunal issued a partially favourable decision for Sifuna, declaring that the NEC resolution was invalid only to the extent that it sought to remove him without affording him a fair hearing.
All other prayers sought by the senator were dismissed, leaving ODM free to continue disciplinary action within the bounds of due process.
