Edwin Sifuna’s bid to be reinstated as Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has hit a legal roadblock after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The tribunal’s decision, issued on Wednesday, directs all parties involved—including Sifuna and ODM—to resolve the dispute through the party’s internal Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADRM) in good faith.
The ruling effectively removes the courts from immediate involvement in Sifuna’s ongoing challenge against his removal as ODM Secretary General, reaffirming the importance of party-led mechanisms in resolving leadership and disciplinary disputes.
According to the tribunal, Sifuna’s removal should not be filed with the Registrar of Political Parties pending the resolution of the dispute through the internal dispute resolution mechanism (IDRM). “This order ensures that the party has an opportunity to handle internal matters according to its constitution before any external intervention,” the tribunal noted.
The tribunal further emphasized that its decision does not limit or prejudice ODM’s right to institute disciplinary proceedings against its officials, provided these actions are conducted strictly in line with the party’s constitution. This clarification underscores a balance between internal party governance and individual members’ legal recourse.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy stems from a decision made during the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held in Mombasa on February 11, 2026. The meeting, chaired by ODM party leader Dr. Oburu Oginga, resolved to remove Sifuna from his position as Secretary General, citing “concerns about discipline within the party’s senior leadership.”
Following the removal, the NEC appointed ODM Deputy Secretary General and Busia Woman Representative Catherine Omanyo as the acting Secretary General. Omanyo is expected to serve in an interim capacity until a substantive office holder is elected through the party’s established processes.
Sifuna, however, challenged the decision immediately, filing a petition with the PPDT the day after the NEC meeting. Initially, he secured a favorable order halting attempts to remove him from office, suggesting that the tribunal acknowledged potential procedural issues in the NEC’s decision.
In its ruling striking out Sifuna’s petition, the tribunal highlighted that political parties in Kenya have established internal dispute resolution frameworks designed to handle conflicts among members. These frameworks, such as ADRM and IDRM, are intended to provide a structured approach to resolving disputes without resorting immediately to judicial intervention.
“The tribunal is satisfied that the matter falls squarely within the remit of the party’s internal mechanisms,” the ruling reads. “As such, the tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the petition at this stage.”
The tribunal also addressed concerns about procedural fairness, clarifying that its orders should not impede ODM’s ability to conduct internal disciplinary proceedings. “The party may proceed with necessary actions provided these are consistent with the provisions of the party constitution,” the tribunal emphasized.
The ruling reinforces the principle that political parties in Kenya are largely self-governing and responsible for handling internal disputes. It sets a precedent emphasizing that courts will generally defer to party constitutions and internal processes before intervening in leadership disputes.
For ODM, this means the responsibility to manage the Secretary General dispute rests firmly within the party. Party officials are now expected to engage with Sifuna in good faith, following the ADRM framework. How the matter is resolved internally could have implications for party cohesion, especially given ODM’s position as one of Kenya’s major political parties.
Political analysts have observed that the ruling underscores the importance of adherence to party constitutions in Kenya’s multiparty democracy. “The PPDT ruling is a reminder that political parties are expected to self-regulate,” said a constitutional law expert. “Courts are generally reluctant to intervene in internal party politics unless there is clear evidence of illegality or a breach of statutory provisions.”
Sifuna and his legal team now face the challenge of navigating ODM’s internal dispute resolution process. Meanwhile, the party’s leadership, under Dr. Oginga and acting Secretary General Catherine Omanyo, will have to ensure that internal procedures are transparent and in strict compliance with party rules.
Observers note that the dispute highlights broader questions about internal democracy within Kenyan political parties. Leadership disputes, if not resolved carefully, have the potential to divide party structures and influence broader electoral strategies. In this context, ADRM and IDRM mechanisms are not just procedural formalities—they are critical tools for maintaining stability and legitimacy within political organizations.
The tribunal’s decision also comes at a politically sensitive time, as ODM continues to position itself ahead of upcoming national elections. Party unity and discipline will be closely scrutinized by both party members and the electorate, making the resolution of this dispute a key factor in ODM’s public perception and internal cohesion.
As the matter proceeds through the party’s internal mechanisms, all eyes will remain on how ODM balances accountability, discipline, and the rights of individual leaders like Sifuna. While the court’s involvement has been limited for now, the outcome of internal proceedings could still prompt legal scrutiny if either party believes the constitution has not been properly observed.
In the meantime, Catherine Omanyo will continue to serve as acting Secretary General, steering the day-to-day functions of the party’s secretariat until a permanent solution is reached. The PPDT’s ruling has made it clear that Kenyan law favors internal party resolution over external adjudication, reinforcing a system where political parties are expected to manage their own affairs in accordance with their constitutions.
The ruling effectively removes the courts from immediate involvement in Sifuna’s ongoing challenge against his removal as ODM Secretary General, reaffirming the importance of party-led mechanisms in resolving leadership and disciplinary disputes.
According to the tribunal, Sifuna’s removal should not be filed with the Registrar of Political Parties pending the resolution of the dispute through the internal dispute resolution mechanism (IDRM). “This order ensures that the party has an opportunity to handle internal matters according to its constitution before any external intervention,” the tribunal noted.
The tribunal further emphasized that its decision does not limit or prejudice ODM’s right to institute disciplinary proceedings against its officials, provided these actions are conducted strictly in line with the party’s constitution. This clarification underscores a balance between internal party governance and individual members’ legal recourse.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy stems from a decision made during the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held in Mombasa on February 11, 2026. The meeting, chaired by ODM party leader Dr. Oburu Oginga, resolved to remove Sifuna from his position as Secretary General, citing “concerns about discipline within the party’s senior leadership.”
Following the removal, the NEC appointed ODM Deputy Secretary General and Busia Woman Representative Catherine Omanyo as the acting Secretary General. Omanyo is expected to serve in an interim capacity until a substantive office holder is elected through the party’s established processes.
Sifuna, however, challenged the decision immediately, filing a petition with the PPDT the day after the NEC meeting. Initially, he secured a favorable order halting attempts to remove him from office, suggesting that the tribunal acknowledged potential procedural issues in the NEC’s decision.
In its ruling striking out Sifuna’s petition, the tribunal highlighted that political parties in Kenya have established internal dispute resolution frameworks designed to handle conflicts among members. These frameworks, such as ADRM and IDRM, are intended to provide a structured approach to resolving disputes without resorting immediately to judicial intervention.
“The tribunal is satisfied that the matter falls squarely within the remit of the party’s internal mechanisms,” the ruling reads. “As such, the tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the petition at this stage.”
The tribunal also addressed concerns about procedural fairness, clarifying that its orders should not impede ODM’s ability to conduct internal disciplinary proceedings. “The party may proceed with necessary actions provided these are consistent with the provisions of the party constitution,” the tribunal emphasized.
The ruling reinforces the principle that political parties in Kenya are largely self-governing and responsible for handling internal disputes. It sets a precedent emphasizing that courts will generally defer to party constitutions and internal processes before intervening in leadership disputes.
For ODM, this means the responsibility to manage the Secretary General dispute rests firmly within the party. Party officials are now expected to engage with Sifuna in good faith, following the ADRM framework. How the matter is resolved internally could have implications for party cohesion, especially given ODM’s position as one of Kenya’s major political parties.
Political analysts have observed that the ruling underscores the importance of adherence to party constitutions in Kenya’s multiparty democracy. “The PPDT ruling is a reminder that political parties are expected to self-regulate,” said a constitutional law expert. “Courts are generally reluctant to intervene in internal party politics unless there is clear evidence of illegality or a breach of statutory provisions.”
Sifuna and his legal team now face the challenge of navigating ODM’s internal dispute resolution process. Meanwhile, the party’s leadership, under Dr. Oginga and acting Secretary General Catherine Omanyo, will have to ensure that internal procedures are transparent and in strict compliance with party rules.
Observers note that the dispute highlights broader questions about internal democracy within Kenyan political parties. Leadership disputes, if not resolved carefully, have the potential to divide party structures and influence broader electoral strategies. In this context, ADRM and IDRM mechanisms are not just procedural formalities—they are critical tools for maintaining stability and legitimacy within political organizations.
The tribunal’s decision also comes at a politically sensitive time, as ODM continues to position itself ahead of upcoming national elections. Party unity and discipline will be closely scrutinized by both party members and the electorate, making the resolution of this dispute a key factor in ODM’s public perception and internal cohesion.
As the matter proceeds through the party’s internal mechanisms, all eyes will remain on how ODM balances accountability, discipline, and the rights of individual leaders like Sifuna. While the court’s involvement has been limited for now, the outcome of internal proceedings could still prompt legal scrutiny if either party believes the constitution has not been properly observed.
In the meantime, Catherine Omanyo will continue to serve as acting Secretary General, steering the day-to-day functions of the party’s secretariat until a permanent solution is reached. The PPDT’s ruling has made it clear that Kenyan law favors internal party resolution over external adjudication, reinforcing a system where political parties are expected to manage their own affairs in accordance with their constitutions.
