ODM defends Sifuna's ouster as secretary general, cites indiscipline

ODM told the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) on Thursday that the party had a solid and lawful basis for removing Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna as Secretary General, citing a pattern they described as inimical to party discipline and cohesion.

Appearing before the tribunal, ODM lawyers led by advocates Samuel Makori, Ken Amondi and Tom Kajwang' argued that Sifuna's removal was not only legally grounded but that the senator had pre-empted the process by rushing to the tribunal before exhausting the party's internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

"No final decision had crystallised. If the decision was final, it would have been ratified. It has not been ratified," Makori told the tribunal. 

"The internal appellate architecture of the ODM party has not been fully exercised and for those reasons we submit that this complaint is premature and is for dismissal."

ODM's second lawyer Amondi, spelled out the specific conduct that the party says justified initiating removal proceedings against Sifuna.

The tribunal heard that among the embattled secretary general’s alleged infractions, he read and acknowledged a Central Committee resolution from October 27, 2025, endorsing Dr Oburu Oginga as ODM party leader, only to later contradict the decision in public forums.

This conduct, the lawyer said was cited by the NEC as justification for initiating his removal.

Sifuna is further accused of undermining party decisions by publicly contradicting other resolutions of the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC), failing to respect the internal hierarchy, and disregarding instructions from party organs. 

The ODM lawyer argued that these actions contributed to what the NEC described as a pattern of conduct detrimental to the orderly functioning of the party, including mismanagement of the party secretariat and ignoring procedures outlined in the ODM constitution for dispute resolution and leadership accountability.  

"The complainant's conduct is inimical to an ordered and disciplined ODM party, so that the first respondent's ODM National Executive Committee had a reasonable basis for initiating the removal proceedings. We honestly submit that the complainant's constitutional and statutory rights have not been infringed or violated," Amondi told the tribunal.

"Sifuna actually read the resolution, and the same complainant subsequently in quite an array of fora contradicts the same position," Amondi told the tribunal, adding that the party had enumerated approximately six to seven such infractions in its supporting affidavit.

Amondi invoked two Latin legal doctrines to frame the party's argument that no legal action can arise from a dishonorable cause, and that a court cannot assist someone whose claim is based on their own illegal conduct.

He argued that Sifuna’s alleged actions disqualified him from seeking the tribunal’s protection.  

Makori also mounted a robust jurisdictional challenge, arguing that Sifuna had never attempted to resolve the dispute through the party's Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM) as required under Section 42A of the Political Parties Act, and had in fact admitted as much in his own pleadings.

"It is very clear that there was no attempt. In actual fact, paragraph 15 of the affidavit in support of the complaint confirms that there was no attempt at all to invoke IDRM," Makori told the tribunal.

He cited Article 88 of the ODM constitution, which he said provides for amicable internal dispute resolution and even arbitration where party organs fail to resolve a matter, arguing Sifuna pursued neither avenue.

"The law is clear. The issue of jurisdiction is settled... we therefore submit that the preliminary objection should stand and this claim should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction," Makori said.

Amondi also argued that Sifuna's rights under Article 74 of the ODM constitution, which guarantees an office bearer the right to be heard before removal, had not in fact been violated, because the party's process was still ongoing when Sifuna filed his case.

"The complainant jumped the gun and faulted an ongoing process," Amondi submitted.

He told the tribunal that Sifuna was to be allowed to defend himself before the NEC resolution could be ratified by the National General Council (NGC) or the National Delegates Convention (NDC).

"We submit that the complainant’s infractions, as enumerated, provided a reasonable basis for the first respondent's National Executive Committee to initiate removal proceedings," he said, urging the tribunal to dismiss the case.

Senior Counsel Tom Kajwang urged the tribunal to dismiss Sifuna’s case, saying the complaint was premature. 

“No final decision had crystallised, and the internal appellate processes within the party have not been fully exercised,” Kajwang told the tribunal.  

ODM's NEC resolved on February 11, 2026 in Mombasa to remove Sifuna with immediate effect, citing grave concern over rising indiscipline within the party, particularly at the senior leadership level. 

The PPDT issued orders the following day blocking the removal from taking effect, with those orders later extended until the determination of the case 

The tribunal will deliver the judgement on March 26, 2026.