Registrar of Political Parties okays Sifuna's removal as ODM secretary general

The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP) in Kenya has formally sanctioned the removal of Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna as the Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party. This decision, following a resolution by ODM's National Executive Council (NEC), underscores the critical role of the Registrar in regulating internal party governance and ensuring compliance with the Political Parties Act, 2011, and party constitutions. The Registrar's approval, which involved a review of submitted documents and consideration of due process, has significant implications for political party democracy and leadership stability. While the ORPP has updated its records, the matter remains subject to an ongoing challenge before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), highlighting the multi-layered dispute resolution framework for internal party wrangles in Kenya.

The landscape of political party governance in Kenya has once again been brought into sharp focus with the recent formal recognition by the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP) of the removal of Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna as the Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party. This development follows a resolution by the party’s National Executive Council (NEC) to oust Senator Sifuna, a decision that has since been ratified by the Registrar. The ORPP's approval signifies a crucial step in the often-contentious process of internal party leadership changes, lending official weight to the party's actions.

This incident highlights the intricate interplay between a political party's internal constitutional mechanisms, the regulatory oversight of the ORPP, and the adjudicative role of the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT). For legal practitioners, the case of Senator Sifuna offers a pertinent illustration of the procedural and substantive legal requirements governing the removal of party officials under the Political Parties Act, 2011. It also underscores the avenues available for challenging such decisions and the limits of regulatory intervention in internal party affairs.

This article delves into the legal framework underpinning the Registrar's decision, examines the powers of party organs, and discusses the implications of this approval within Kenya's political party dispute resolution architecture. It aims to provide a comprehensive analysis for legal professionals navigating the complexities of political party law and internal democracy.

The governance of political parties in Kenya is primarily guided by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the Political Parties Act, 2011 (No. 11 of 2011). These instruments establish a framework designed to foster internal party democracy, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. The Political Parties Act, 2011, specifically created the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP) as a state office with a broad mandate to register, regulate, monitor, investigate, and supervise political parties to ensure compliance with the Act.

Among the key functions of the Registrar, as outlined in Section 34 of the Political Parties Act, 2011, are maintaining a register of political parties, verifying and making publicly available lists of members, and ensuring compliance with party constitutions. Political parties are required to have democratically elected governing bodies and robust internal dispute resolution mechanisms (IDRMs) as per the Second Schedule of the Act. These IDRMs are intended to resolve disputes among members or between members and the party, with a prerequisite that such internal mechanisms must be exhausted before a matter can be escalated to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT).

The National Executive Council (NEC) is typically a central organ within a political party, mandated with the day-to-day running of party affairs and often vested with powers to make significant decisions, including disciplinary actions. The party's constitution outlines the specific powers and procedures for the removal of officials, which must align with the principles of natural justice and the broader legal framework. Any changes to party leadership must be communicated to the Registrar for updating of official records.

The removal of Senator Edwin Sifuna as ODM Secretary General by the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) and the subsequent approval by the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP) underscore the procedural requirements for effecting leadership changes within political parties. The ORPP's decision to sanction the removal was based on a review of documents submitted by ODM, with the Registrar confirming that the process complied with both the Political Parties Act, 2011, and the ODM party constitution. This highlights the Registrar's role as a gatekeeper, ensuring that internal party processes adhere to established legal and constitutional norms.

Crucially, the Registrar's assessment included considering the powers of the party's NEC to establish committees and determine their terms of reference, which would encompass disciplinary processes. This aligns with the general principle that political parties, while autonomous, must operate within the confines of their own constitutions and the national legal framework. The Political Parties Act, 2011, mandates parties to have internal dispute resolution mechanisms, which must afford fair hearing and adhere to rules of natural justice.

However, the path to Sifuna's removal has not been without contest. It is notable that an earlier attempt by ODM to remove him was challenged before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), which found that Sifuna had been denied a fair hearing. This earlier ruling by the PPDT, a quasi-judicial body established under the Political Parties Act, 2011, with jurisdiction over internal party disputes and appeals from the Registrar's decisions, emphasizes the importance of due process. The current approval by the Registrar, despite the pending substantive challenge, suggests that the ORPP was satisfied that the *latest* process met the statutory and constitutional thresholds, including the absence of a response from Sifuna during the review period.

Senator Sifuna's legal team has since challenged the Registrar's decision, citing procedural irregularity. The PPDT recently declined to issue interim orders to stop the implementation of Sifuna's removal, allowing the Registrar to proceed with updating party records while the substantive application is scheduled for hearing. This indicates that while the Registrar's administrative action is recognized, the legality and propriety of the underlying party decision remain subject to judicial scrutiny by the PPDT, which has the mandate to determine whether the disciplinary process complied with both the ODM Constitution and the law. The PPDT's jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Registrar provides an essential check on the ORPP's regulatory powers.

The Registrar of Political Parties' approval of Edwin Sifuna's removal as ODM Secretary General serves as a potent reminder of the robust, albeit often contested, legal framework governing political parties in Kenya. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the critical importance of meticulous adherence to party constitutions and the Political Parties Act, 2011, when initiating or responding to leadership changes. Parties must ensure that internal disciplinary processes are transparent, fair, and afford due process, as any procedural misstep can lead to successful challenges before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.

Practitioners advising political parties should emphasize the need for robust internal dispute resolution mechanisms that comply with statutory requirements, including the rules of natural justice. Conversely, those representing aggrieved party members must be prepared to navigate the multi-tiered dispute resolution system, from internal party organs to the PPDT and potentially the High Court. The ongoing legal challenge to the Registrar's decision highlights that administrative approval does not necessarily equate to finality, and the PPDT remains a crucial arbiter in safeguarding internal party democracy and the rights of members. All stakeholders should keenly watch the PPDT's substantive determination, as it will further clarify the boundaries of party autonomy and regulatory oversight.