Edwin Sifuna has suffered another setback in his fight to retain his position as Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) Secretary-General after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal upheld his removal, ruling that he was given a fair chance to defend himself.
In its judgment delivered on Thursday, September 10, 2026, the Tribunal rejected Sifuna’s latest challenge, finding that ODM’s National Executive Committee (NEC) had the power to form a special panel to handle his disciplinary case.
The decision marks Sifuna’s third attempt to overturn his removal from the party position.
Sifuna had challenged the legality of the panel, arguing that disciplinary cases involving party members were the responsibility of the Disciplinary Committee provided for under Article 78 of the ODM Constitution.
He maintained that the panel appointed to hear his case had no legal basis and could therefore not make a recommendation for his removal.
The Tribunal, however, disagreed, finding that Article 51(3)(f) of the ODM Constitution gives the NEC wide powers to create committees for specific duties and set out their terms of reference.
“In the absence of a clear provision preventing the NEC from delegating its powers to a subcommittee, then it cannot be faulted for creating the panel that heard the complainant’s (Sifuna) case,” it held.
The Tribunal acknowledged that ODM’s NEC had not given reasons for choosing to establish the panel instead of using the Disciplinary Committee under Article 78 when it made the decision on March 4, 2026.
“Whether by design or default, the respondent’s (ODM) NEC disregarded the jurisprudence principle,” the Tribunal said, but added that the decision did not render the panel unlawful.
It further ruled that the NEC maintains administrative and supervisory authority over party committees, including the Disciplinary Committee. The existence of that committee, it said, did not stop the NEC from creating another body to help it perform its duties.
Sifuna also questioned the fairness of the disciplinary process, saying he had been allowed only four days to respond to a notice to show cause, with the period falling during the Easter holiday.
He argued that the allegations against him lacked sufficient detail and that the short response period denied him a proper opportunity to prepare his defence.
The senator also raised concerns over alleged bias involving two members of the panel and challenged its authority to hear the matter.
The Tribunal found that although the original four-day period was short, the concern was later addressed after Sifuna asked for more information on the allegations.
The panel extended the period given to him, while ODM provided additional details and supporting documents on April 14.
The hearing, which had initially been set for April 10, was also postponed to April 20. The Tribunal said the changes left Sifuna with about three weeks between the notice to show cause and the hearing to prepare his response.
Sifuna appeared before the panel through Senior Counsel Isaac Okero, who challenged its jurisdiction and raised allegations of bias before later withdrawing from the proceedings.
“The complainant did not participate in the proceedings any further. This was a personal choice, not attributable to being denied a hearing,” the Tribunal said.
On the alleged bias, the Tribunal held that Sifuna should have pursued his objections before the panel instead of withdrawing from the proceedings.
It ultimately found that he had been given enough opportunity to respond to the allegations and present his defence.
“A party who is afforded that opportunity and declines to take up cannot be heard to say he was denied a hearing,” the Tribunal ruled.
“It therefore follows that the complaint does not succeed. For the reasons we have given, we hereby dismiss the complaint."
The case followed a June recommendation by the disciplinary panel that Sifuna be removed from office. ODM’s NEC adopted the recommendation on June 22 and immediately removed him as Secretary-General.
The disciplinary action came amid a growing dispute between Sifuna and ODM leadership over alleged gross misconduct, his conduct and his positions on matters concerning the party.
The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties later reviewed the process and, on July 9, determined that the removal had complied with the Political Parties Act and the ODM Constitution. The Registrar subsequently updated the party records to reflect the changes.
Sifuna then approached the Tribunal, challenging both the NEC decision and the Registrar’s subsequent action.
His latest case followed earlier proceedings in which the Tribunal had found that he was not given a fair hearing before an earlier attempt to remove him.
The Tribunal later allowed ODM to restart the disciplinary process, directing that any fresh proceedings comply with the law and the party constitution