Tribunal bars ODM from removing Sifuna as secretary general
Politics
By
Nancy Gitonga
| May 05, 2026
Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna addresses supporters during Linda Mwananchi rally at Ka Owuor Grounds in Kisumu County. [Michael Mute, Standard]
ODM has suffered a major blow after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) issued fresh orders temporarily blocking it from effecting any decision to remove Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna as the party’s Secretary General.
In a ruling delivered on May 5, 2026, a tribunal bench led by acting chairperson Gad Gathu directed that while ODM is at liberty to proceed with its internal disciplinary process, any outcome arising from that process shall not take effect until the new case filed by Sifuna before the tribunal is heard and determined.
“We decline to stop any Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism (IDRM) or disciplinary proceedings involving Sifuna between him and ODM. However, we direct that the outcome of any IDRM or disciplinary proceedings between Sifuna and the ODM party shall not take effect pending the hearing and determination of this complaint,” ruled Gathu.
READ MORE
Leave Nganyas alone: They define Kenyan culture and creativity
Absa unveils Sh100bn asset finance plan
Kenya targets Sh230bn from indigenous knowledge assets
Young innovators secure backing to scale, attract investors
Packaged Githeri signals rise of ready-to-eat meals
Africa's $29.5 trillion mineral wealth: The unsent invoice the world owes
From insight to action: How small businesses grow
The dispute pits Sifuna against ODM and the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties.
Sifuna moved to the tribunal for the second time seeking protection from what he termed an imminent ouster from his position as secretary general.
In its determination, the tribunal dismissed a preliminary objection raised by ODM challenging its jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The party had argued that the dispute was premature and should first be handled through its Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism (IDRM).
However, the tribunal held that the question of jurisdiction could not be conclusively determined at the preliminary stage, noting that it would require interrogation of contested facts and evidence.
"We have, however, dismissed the preliminary objection by the ODM Party on jurisdiction ," the tribunal ruled.
On the substantive application on interim orders, the tribunal ruled that Sifuna had established a prima facie case warranting intervention at this stage.
Gathu led- bench emphasized that the issues raised, including whether his rights had been violated through ODM’s disciplinary actions, required a full hearing.
“Without making any conclusive findings on the merits, we are satisfied that the Sufuna’s case calls for a rebuttal from the ODM party,” the tribunal noted in its ruling.
The tribunal further observed that allowing the disciplinary process to conclude without safeguards could render the proceedings before the tribunal nugatory.
It cited public interest considerations and the need to preserve its adjudicatory authority as justification for granting conservatory orders.
At the same time, the tribunal declined to halt ODM’s ongoing disciplinary proceedings against Sifuna, effectively striking a balance between the party’s internal processes and the need for judicial oversight.
ODM, through its legal team led by lawyers Ken Amondi and Samuel Makori, had insisted that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction until the party’s disciplinary panel concludes its work.
The lawyers urged the tribunal to refer the matter back to the IDRM process.
“We submit that this tribunal will only have jurisdiction after the disciplinary panel has adjudicated the issues and rendered a decision,” ODM argued in its submissions.
This is not the first time the tribunal has intervened in the dispute.
In an earlier ruling on April 9, 2026, it declined to stop the disciplinary proceedings but similarly barred the party from implementing any final decision.
The case is now scheduled for hearing on June 9, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., where the tribunal is expected to determine the dispute conclusively.