In a significant legal victory, Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has successfully retained his position as the Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) after a tribunal extended interim orders blocking his contentious ouster.

Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has survived a high-stakes purge within the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) halted a controversial move by the party's National Executive Committee to replace him with Busia Woman Representative Catherine Omayo.

This legal reprieve temporarily freezes a fierce power struggle within Kenya's largest opposition party. The PPDT’s intervention prevents an immediate leadership crisis and sets the stage for a critical battle over due process and internal party democracy, directly impacting ODM's stability in the shifting political landscape.

The internal crisis officially erupted following a contentious resolution passed by the ODM National Executive Committee (NEC). The high-level meeting, which took place in the coastal city of Mombasa on February 11, 2026, marked a dramatic escalation in internal party tensions. During this gathering, the NEC made the sudden and unexpected move to replace Edwin Sifuna. They appointed Busia Woman Representative Catherine Omayo to take over his duties in an acting capacity, sending shockwaves through the country's political establishment.

According to the official communication from the party hierarchy, the NEC cited alleged disciplinary issues and conduct unbecoming of a senior party official as the primary justification for his abrupt removal. Political analysts have speculated that the rift began widening following controversial remarks Sifuna allegedly made during the burial of Raila Odinga's former bodyguard, indicating deep-seated ideological or personal clashes within the top brass.

Edwin Sifuna, a vocal and prominent figure in Kenyan politics, refused to accept the NEC's decision lying down. He moved swiftly to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), characterizing the committee's action as an irregular "purge." Sifuna and his legal team vehemently argued that the party leadership completely bypassed its own established legal safeguards and dispute resolution mechanisms.

A Weighty Legal Battle for Due Process

In his comprehensive submissions to the tribunal, Sifuna maintained that the NEC's decision fundamentally lacked transparency and brazenly violated core constitutional and legal principles. He argued that the abrupt ouster was orchestrated without affording him the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.

"The process violated the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and that the move undermines internal party democracy," Sifuna asserted in his court filings. This argument strikes at the heart of how political parties in Kenya are expected to govern themselves under the Political Parties Act, which mandates fair administrative action.

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, recognizing the gravity of the situation, delivered a ruling that thoroughly vindicated Sifuna's immediate push for conservatory orders. The panel noted that the allegations leveled against the Secretary General, as well as his robust defense, raised deeply "weighty" legal issues that require extensive and thorough judicial consideration before any permanent action can be taken.

By opting to maintain the stay orders, the PPDT sent a clear and unmistakable signal to the ODM leadership. The tribunal explicitly warned the party against taking any further action to enforce the contested leadership change. They emphasized that allowing Sifuna's removal to take effect before a final, substantive determination could result in severe and "irreversible consequences" for the party's governance structure and the overall integrity of the ongoing legal proceedings.

Core Questions Before the Tribunal

As the case progresses, the tribunal will be tasked with untangling complex legal and procedural knots. The upcoming legal showdown will focus heavily on core party governance issues and the strict interpretation of the party's internal constitution. The legal teams will lock horns over several critical questions:

• Scope of Executive Authority: Does the National Executive Committee possess the unilateral and unquestionable power to summarily remove a serving Secretary General without subjecting him to a formal, structured disciplinary hearing?
• Adherence to Due Process: Did the party leadership strictly adhere to the Fair Administrative Action Act and the binding provisions of its own internal constitution when arriving at the decision to install Catherine Omayo?
• Exhaustion of Internal Mechanisms: The ODM party has filed a preliminary objection arguing that Sifuna rushed to the PPDT prematurely. Did Sifuna fail to exhaust the party's Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM) before seeking external judicial intervention?

The Road Ahead and Political Implications

The tribunal has officially scheduled the matter for the highlighting of written submissions from both the prosecution and the defense legal teams on March 12, 2026. This date will mark a decisive phase in the high-stakes legal battle. Until that hearing concludes and a final ruling is delivered, Edwin Sifuna will continue to lawfully hold the office and discharge all official duties associated with the ODM Secretary General position.

Furthermore, the ODM party remains strictly barred from gazetting Catherine Omayo as his replacement. They are also legally prohibited from implementing or initiating any alterations to the party's official leadership register held at the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP).

This ongoing standoff is more than just a personal legal battle for the Nairobi Senator; it is a profound litmus test for Kenya's democratic institutions. It highlights the often-turbulent nature of internal party politics and the crucial role of independent tribunals in ensuring that political entities adhere to the rule of law, even within their own ranks. As the March 12 hearing rapidly approaches, the Orange Democratic Movement faces a defining test of its internal democratic credentials and its commitment to natural justice.