A fresh ruling by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) has handed Nairobi Senator and ODM Secretary General Edwin Sifuna a major legal victory in his dispute with the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), after the tribunal found that the party violated his right to a fair hearing during disciplinary proceedings that sought to remove him from office.
In a judgment delivered on June 18, 2026, the tribunal concluded that the disciplinary process initiated against Sifuna failed to meet the standards of fairness required under the law. According to the ruling, ODM did not follow the principles of procedural fairness and due process before taking steps against its Secretary General.
The tribunal found that the party’s actions did not comply with the legal requirements governing disciplinary proceedings within political parties. As a result, the process that had been started against Sifuna was declared procedurally unfair and invalid.
The decision represents a significant setback for ODM, which had attempted to discipline and remove one of its most senior officials amid growing internal disagreements over the party’s political direction.
The tribunal noted that the flaws in the process were serious enough to render the disciplinary proceedings unlawful from the beginning.
Despite siding with Sifuna, the tribunal made it clear that its decision should not be interpreted as a permanent shield against disciplinary action.
The ruling stated that ODM remains free to pursue disciplinary proceedings against the senator in the future, provided any new process strictly follows the law, the party constitution, and internal regulations.
Following the judgment, ODM acknowledged the tribunal’s directions, saying that any disciplinary proceedings against the senator should be carried out lawfully and concluded in accordance with the applicable rules.
The dispute has its roots in widening divisions within ODM regarding the party’s relationship with President William Ruto’s administration. Tensions have persisted since ODM signed a cooperation agreement with the Kenya Kwanza government in March 2025, a move that sparked debate among party members and supporters.
Sifuna has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of the arrangement. His public positions have frequently differed from those of influential figures within ODM who support closer cooperation with the government. Those differences have fueled speculation about power struggles within the party and have placed the Secretary General at the center of internal political battles.
The legal battle had already attracted the attention of the courts earlier this year. On February 12, the High Court suspended the implementation and gazettement of a resolution by ODM’s National Executive Committee that sought to remove Sifuna from his position as Secretary General.
The court found that the dispute required a full hearing and subsequently issued conservatory orders that protected Sifuna’s position while the matter was being determined. Those orders ensured that he remained in office as the legal challenge continued.
The disciplinary process itself was triggered by petitions from members of the Linda Ground faction within ODM. The group accused Sifuna of insubordination and claimed that he had associated with rival political groups in a manner that undermined the party’s interests. Those allegations formed the basis of the disciplinary action that eventually found its way before the tribunal.
The latest ruling comes at a politically sensitive moment for the Nairobi senator. Just a day earlier, on June 17, he was removed from the Senate Energy Committee during a reshuffle of standing committees. The committee is chaired by Siaya Senator Oburu Oginga.
With the tribunal now having nullified the disciplinary process, attention is likely to shift to whether ODM will launch a fresh case against Sifuna and how the party will manage the growing differences within its ranks.
While the ruling preserves his position for now, it also leaves the door open for another legal and political contest if the party chooses to restart the process under the required legal framework.
