By Andrew Kariuki

Edwin Watenya Sifuna, through Senior Counsel Isaac Okero, on Monday mounted a detailed legal challenge before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), seeking to stop disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).

The matter, heard by a five-member tribunal chaired by Hon. Gad Gathu Kiragu, brought into focus both Sifuna’s application for conservatory orders and ODM’s preliminary objection seeking to strike out the case.

Appearing for ODM, Advocate Ken Amondi, alongside Sam Makori, opposed the application, arguing that Sifuna was effectively attempting to relitigate issues already addressed by the tribunal in an earlier matter.

According to Amondi, the current application was a reworked version of a previous case that had failed, maintaining that the tribunal should not entertain what he framed as an attempt to “repackage” a dismissed claim.

On the other side, Senior Counsel Okero launched a sustained attack on ODM’s internal processes, centring his argument on the party’s February 11, 2026 National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution that led to Sifuna’s removal as Secretary General.

He told the tribunal that the resolution was made without notice and without giving Sifuna a hearing, contrary to the party’s own constitution.

“The meeting resulted in a resolution for the removal of Edwin Sifuna as Secretary General of ODM with immediate effect… yet he had not been heard,” Okero submitted.

Okero argued that the disciplinary process that followed, including a notice to show cause issued on April 2, 2026, was fundamentally flawed and could not cure the earlier breach.

He further maintained that ODM was conflating two distinct processes under its constitution, internal dispute resolution and disciplinary proceedings, in a manner that undermined due process.

In one of the more striking moments of the hearing, Okero criticised ODM’s approach, likening it to an “ostrich-like” reaction to legal scrutiny.“It is a characteristic… when faced with the adversity of adherence to the rule of law… the reaction is to place one’s head in the sand,” he argued, accusing the party of ignoring clear ODM constitutional requirements.

He added that no amount of argument could alter the facts before the tribunal, stating that attempts to reinterpret the resolution and constitutional provisions could not make “black/ white or east/west.”

Okero urged the tribunal to grant conservatory orders halting implementation of the NEC resolution, any disciplinary proceedings arising from it and any move to formalise Sifuna’s removal, including publication in the Kenya Gazette.

He argued that the case met all legal thresholds for such orders, citing the strength of the claim, the public interest given ODM’s status as a publicly funded party and the need to preserve the tribunal’s authority.

At the same time, ODM’s preliminary objection challenges the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the complaint, setting up a dual determination on both procedure and substance.

The tribunal is now expected to rule on whether to halt the disciplinary process and whether Sifuna’s complaint will proceed to full hearing, in a case that could shape how political parties handle internal disputes and disciplinary action.