'Natural justice!' ODM defends kicking out SG Sifuna in PPDT affidavit

In a detailed replying affidavit filed before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), the Secretary for Special Interest Groups Halima Daro outlines the sequence of events that unfolded after the passing of Raila Odinga in October 2025, arguing that the disciplinary process initiated against Sifuna was rooted in collective party decisions and internal constitutional procedures.

According to the affidavit, the National Executive Committee (NEC) convened on October 16, 2025, just a day after Odinga’s death, to provide direction during what it describes as a delicate period of mourning and political uncertainty.

The meeting, the party says, was necessary to ensure continuity of leadership and stability within the party’s structures.

The Central Committee subsequently met on October 27, 2025, where members were formally briefed on the NEC’s deliberations.

During that meeting, Sifuna, in his official capacity as Secretary General, is said to have read out resolutions endorsing Oburu Oginga as interim party leader.

“The Complainant, in his capacity as Secretary General, read the resolution endorsing Hon. Dr Oburu Oginga as the new Party Leader and urged the party rank and file to accord him full support and cooperation,” the affidavit states.

The endorsement was later affirmed by the National Governing Council during a meeting held in Mombasa in November 2025, in what ODM describes as a layered and constitutionally compliant leadership transition process.

However, the party now claims that despite actively participating in those meetings and publicly communicating the resolutions, Sifuna later issued statements that appeared to question or contradict the very decisions adopted by party organs.

“Notwithstanding being an active participant in the aforestated decisions by the Party’s Central Committee, National Executive Committee and National Governing Council, the Complainant on numerous instances contradicted the said positions in his public pronouncements, thereby creating confusion,” the affidavit reads.

The party argues that the Secretary General’s role is central to maintaining clarity and coherence in party messaging, especially during a sensitive transition period.

“The Secretary General, as the official spokesperson of the Party, is expected to articulate positions adopted by Party organs with clarity and consistency,” the affidavit states, adding that deviation from collective resolutions “compromises the integrity of the Party and its organs.”

ODM further contends that the alleged contradictory statements undermined party cohesion at a time when it was preparing for future political engagements, including early groundwork for the 2027 General Election.

At the core of the dispute before the Tribunal is whether the NEC lawfully initiated a disciplinary process against Sifuna over what it terms infractions relating to party discipline, or whether the move was unconstitutional and irregular as claimed in his complaint.

The party maintains that the February 11, 2026, NEC resolution merely initiated a process and was not a final determination.

"Notwithstanding being an active participant in the aforestated decisions by the ODM Party Central Committee,

National Executive Committee and National Governing Council, the Complainant, on numerous instances, contradicted the said positions in his public pronouncements, thereby creating confusion, given his mandate as the party spokesman, which envisages him as the person to articulate party positions with clarity," reads the court papers.

ODM insists that the decision was expressly subject to the provisions of the party constitution, including the requirement that the affected official be notified of allegations and accorded a fair hearing.

“The NEC did not purport to condemn the Complainant unheard; rather, it initiated a constitutionally anchored internal process consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action,” the affidavit states.

ODM also argues that before the internal disciplinary mechanism could proceed to the stage of issuing a formal notice to show cause, Sifuna moved to the Tribunal and obtained conservatory orders halting the process.

“Contrary to the Complainant’s assertions, the NEC resolution was not self-executing; it remained subject to review, ratification, or further consideration by other party organs,” the affidavit states.

The party accuses Sifuna of prematurely invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a manner that bypassed the party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM), which it describes as structured and anchored in both the party constitution and the Political Parties Act.

“The Complainant cannot frustrate an ongoing internal process and then seek refuge in the very Court whose jurisdiction is predicated upon the prior exhaustion of such mechanisms,” the affidavit adds.

The Tribunal is now expected to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute or whether the matter should first be referred back to ODM’s internal structures in line with the doctrine of exhaustion, among other applications filed inthe matter.