Sifuna’s removal as ODM SG flawed, rules Tribunal

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) recently delivered a significant ruling, invalidating the Orange Democratic Movement's (ODM) National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution to remove Senator Edwin Sifuna from his position as Secretary General. The Tribunal, led by Chairperson Gad Gathu, found that Sifuna was denied a fair hearing, citing a lack of proper notice regarding the discussion of his conduct and no opportunity to respond to allegations. While the PPDT affirmed political parties' right to manage their internal affairs and conduct disciplinary proceedings, it underscored the imperative of strict adherence to principles of natural justice and fair administrative action as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the Political Parties Act, 2011. The ruling allows ODM to initiate fresh disciplinary action, provided due process is meticulously followed, setting a crucial precedent for internal party democracy and governance.

In a pivotal decision for Kenya's political landscape and internal party governance, the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) has ruled that the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) acted unlawfully in its attempt to remove Senator Edwin Sifuna from his role as Secretary General. The Tribunal, chaired by Gad Gathu, found that the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC) failed to accord Sifuna a fair hearing, thereby nullifying the resolution for his removal.

This ruling carries substantial weight for practising attorneys and legal professionals, particularly those advising political parties or engaging in electoral law. It reinforces the constitutional and statutory safeguards for fair administrative action within political party structures, highlighting the PPDT's critical role in upholding due process. The decision serves as a stark reminder that even internal party disciplinary actions are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny, demanding strict adherence to principles of natural justice.

The core thesis of this article is that the PPDT's judgment in the Sifuna matter firmly entrenches the doctrine of fair hearing within Kenyan political party operations, compelling parties to review and reform their internal disciplinary mechanisms to align with constitutional and statutory requirements. It signals a heightened judicial oversight over the internal affairs of political parties, ensuring that democratic principles extend beyond electoral contests to internal party management.

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) is a quasi-judicial body established under Section 39 of the Political Parties Act, 2011. Its mandate is broad, encompassing the resolution of disputes among members of a political party, between a member and a political party, among political parties, and appeals from decisions of the Registrar of Political Parties. The Tribunal operates at the level of a Magistrate's Court, with avenues for appeal to the High Court and subsequently to the Court of Appeal.

A cornerstone of the Kenyan legal framework, particularly concerning administrative actions, is Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. This Article guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. This constitutional right is further elaborated by the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, which provides a statutory framework for its implementation and outlines the grounds for judicial review of administrative actions. Crucially, the Act emphasizes the necessity of procedural fairness, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, before any administrative action that may adversely affect a person's rights or fundamental freedoms is taken.

Prior to approaching the PPDT, Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act, 2011, generally requires parties to exhaust their internal dispute resolution mechanisms (IDRMs). These IDRMs are mandated to be independent, have written procedures, apply rules of natural justice, and be composed of an odd number of members. In the present case, Senator Sifuna had initially been directed by the PPDT in March 2026 to engage with ODM's internal mechanisms, with the Tribunal temporarily barring the formalization of his removal until the internal process was concluded. This background underscores the delicate balance between party autonomy in managing internal affairs and the overarching constitutional and statutory requirements for due process.

The PPDT's ruling in the Sifuna matter hinged on a meticulous examination of whether the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC) adhered to the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action. The Tribunal found that the NEC's resolution of April 11, 2026, to remove Sifuna was procedurally defective. Specifically, the PPDT determined that there was no evidence Sifuna had been notified that his conduct would be an agenda item for discussion at the NEC meeting, nor was he afforded an opportunity to prepare and present a defence against any allegations. This directly contravenes the *audi alteram partem* rule, a fundamental tenet of natural justice, which dictates that no person should be condemned unheard.

The Tribunal's decision aligns with the expansive interpretation of Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which mandates that all administrative actions must be procedurally fair. Kenyan jurisprudence, particularly following the enactment of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, has moved beyond a purely process-oriented review to include aspects of merit review, ensuring that decisions are not only procedurally correct but also reasonable and lawful. The PPDT, by scrutinizing the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard, demonstrated its commitment to enforcing these higher standards of administrative justice within political party operations.

While the PPDT invalidated the specific resolution to remove Sifuna due to procedural flaws, it was careful to clarify that its decision did not preclude ODM from initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that ODM retains the right to discipline its members, provided such actions are conducted strictly in accordance with the party's constitution, the Political Parties Act, 2011, and the principles of fair administrative action. This aspect of the ruling is crucial, as it balances the need for internal party discipline and autonomy with the constitutional imperative of due process. It underscores that political parties, while private entities, exercise public functions and are therefore bound by public law standards.

The case highlights a recurring tension between the internal self-regulation of political parties and external judicial oversight. The Political Parties Act, 2011, through its establishment of the PPDT and its requirement for robust IDRMs, seeks to channel internal disputes through structured legal avenues. The PPDT's insistence on proper procedure, even after initially directing the parties to exhaust internal mechanisms, demonstrates that the exhaustion doctrine is not an absolute bar to intervention, especially when fundamental rights like the right to a fair hearing are demonstrably violated. The Tribunal's chairperson, Gad Gathu, has consistently emphasized the importance of parties adhering to their own constitutions and the law.

This ruling serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing that political parties cannot act arbitrarily, even in matters concerning their internal leadership. Any disciplinary action, particularly one leading to the removal of a senior official, must be underpinned by transparent processes, adequate notice, and a genuine opportunity for the affected individual to present their case. Failure to do so renders such actions susceptible to nullification by the PPDT, thereby safeguarding internal party democracy and the rights of individual members.

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal's ruling on Senator Edwin Sifuna's removal as ODM Secretary General is a landmark decision that reinforces the constitutional right to fair administrative action within the realm of political party governance in Kenya. For legal practitioners, this judgment underscores the critical importance of advising political parties to meticulously adhere to their own constitutions, the Political Parties Act, 2011, and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, when undertaking any disciplinary action. The emphasis on proper notice, clear agenda setting, and a genuine opportunity to be heard is not merely a procedural formality but a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power.

Practitioners should advise political parties to proactively review and, if necessary, revise their internal disciplinary codes and procedures to ensure full compliance with the principles of natural justice and Article 47 of the Constitution. This includes ensuring that notices for disciplinary meetings clearly state the allegations, the potential consequences, and afford sufficient time for a response. Moving forward, it is anticipated that this ruling will lead to increased scrutiny of internal party processes and potentially more challenges to decisions made without due regard for fair hearing principles. Legal professionals should therefore be prepared to guide parties through robust internal dispute resolution mechanisms and, where necessary, represent members before the PPDT, ensuring that the delicate balance between party autonomy and individual rights is maintained.