The directive by Kenya’s Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has placed the spotlight firmly on the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and its ability to manage internal conflict.
At the centre of the storm is Edwin Sifuna, whose removal as Secretary General triggered a legal and political standoff that now returns to the party’s internal systems. The big question: can ODM’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism (IDRM) deliver a credible, fair, and lasting solution?
What is the Dispute About?
The conflict stems from a February 2026 decision by ODM’s National Executive Committee (NEC) to remove Sifuna from his influential role. Sifuna challenged the move, arguing that it violated both the party constitution and principles of fair administrative action, particularly his right to a fair hearing.
On the other hand, ODM maintained that the process was lawful and that Sifuna prematurely escalated the matter to the tribunal without first exhausting internal party mechanisms. This clash between legal recourse and party procedure is now at the heart of the unfolding process.
Why the Tribunal Sent It Back
The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal ruled that both parties must attempt to resolve the issue internally before further legal intervention. In doing so, the tribunal reinforced a key principle in political governance: disputes within parties should first be handled through established internal frameworks.
Importantly, the tribunal also halted the formalization of Sifuna’s removal, meaning the status quo remains until the IDRM process is exhausted. This creates space for dialogue—but also raises pressure on ODM to prove that its systems are functional and impartial.
Can ODM’s Internal Mechanisms Deliver?
ODM is not new to internal disagreements. Over its two-decade history, the party has navigated factional tensions, leadership contests, and ideological shifts. Its structured hierarchy—from grassroots branches to national organs—suggests it has the institutional capacity to handle disputes.
However, the success of this process will depend on three critical factors: transparency, fairness, and political goodwill. If the IDRM is perceived as biased or predetermined, it risks deepening divisions rather than resolving them.
For Sifuna, the process must guarantee due process and a genuine opportunity to present his case. For ODM, it is a test of whether internal democracy is more than just a constitutional provision.
What’s at Stake for the Party?
This dispute comes at a sensitive time for ODM as it prepares for its National Delegates Convention (NDC) and broader political realignments ahead of the 2027 General Election. A prolonged or poorly handled conflict could weaken the party’s image, especially as it seeks to project unity and readiness.
Conversely, a successful internal resolution could strengthen ODM’s credibility, demonstrating that it can manage dissent without external intervention. It would also set a precedent for how future disputes are handled within the party.
The Bigger Picture
Beyond ODM, this case reflects a broader issue in Kenyan politics: the strength—or weakness—of internal party democracy. Many political disputes in the country end up in courts, often exposing gaps in internal governance structures.
By directing ODM and Sifuna back to the IDRM, the tribunal is effectively pushing political parties to mature institutionally. The outcome of this process could influence how other parties handle disputes in the future.
So, Will It Work?
The answer depends less on the rules and more on the people. ODM has the structures, the experience, and the political weight to resolve the dispute internally. What remains to be seen is whether all parties involved are willing to engage in good faith.
If they do, this could become a defining moment for ODM—one that reinforces its identity as a structured, resilient political movement. If not, the dispute may return to the tribunal, prolonging uncertainty and exposing deeper fractures within the party.
