Nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba.
Nominated senator Gloria Orwoba is in court fighting to retain her seat in the Senate and membership in the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) after the party initiated disciplinary proceedings against her for allegedly shifting allegiance to another political movement.
Ms Orwoba is accused of breaching the party's code of conduct by attending the homecoming ceremony of former Interior Cabinet Secretary Dr Fred Matiang’i.
The event was held on May 2, 2025, at Gusii Stadium.
The disciplinary case, which was initiated following an internal complaint by Mr Festus Omwamba and Mr Henry Muriithi, also concerns Ms Orwoba's open criticism of President William Ruto's administration's labour mobility programme in a radio interview on April 22, 2025.
Another complaint was her decision to be part of a delegation that welcomed Mr Matiang'i back to the country at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on April 17, 2025.
She sued after the UDA disciplinary committee chairperson, Mr Charles Njenga, summoned her to show cause why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against her.
"Your participation and utterances in the stated events clearly demonstrate instances and proof of allegiance to another political movement, conduct unbecoming and disloyalty to the United Democratic Alliance Party, which nominated you to the office and position of Senator in the Senate," reads the letter, which is part of the court documents.
The senator was nominated to represent women in the Senate.
"You said activities which are political in character are further in breach of the party's Code of Conduct, which you subscribed to and constitute gross misconduct in the contemplation of the Constitution of the party".
The letter indicated that she was obligated to popularize the party and promote all decisions and position of the party on various issues.
Block summons
She has since obtained a temporary court order suspending the summons pending hearing and determination of her application.
In the case, Ms Orwoba alleges oppression and witch-hunt meant to embarrass, bully, oust and unlawfully remove her from the position of a nominated Senator.
She adds that the summoning process was marred with procedural impropriety intended to taint her image and political affiliation.
"There is an absence of clear procedural rules within the UDA for handling complaints against party members, such risks pose a great possibility of arbitrary and unfair administrative actions. This calls for urgent judicial intervention to ensure that such matters are handled in a manner that embraces constitutional principles and the rule of law," she says.
She believes the intended disciplinary actions are ultra vires, unconstitutional, and in violation of statutory limits.
The senator argues that UDA lacks substantive and procedural rules for such disciplinary measures that could lead to removal from office of the person of a nominated senator. This, she says, "leaves the entire process at the whims of the party that is the Judge, Jury and Executioner all at the same time. This defeats the essence of fair trial and rules of natural justice".
"The disciplinary committee intends to rely on a make shift constitution of the party that is not the official constitution in the said proceedings and such any outcome of the process is an absurdity and a fruit of a poison tree," she tells court.
Asking for the court's intervention, she argues that allowing the disciplinary proceedings to proceed would amount to a mockery of justice, abuse of court and quasi judicial processes and would grossly infringe on her rights to a Fair Hearing and Fair Administrative Action.
Ms Orwoba says there is potential for unreasonable decision from the committee "as we have seen the 'chest thumping' of some of the members of the party on social media platforms who claim that they will take drastic action against me and that they will forward the allegations to the National Executive Committee for further action".
Since the political parties have authority to resolve their disputes internally, she says the Constitution did not anticipate that the same would be exercised whimsically but rather within the tenets of fairness and natural justice.
"I am entitled to equal protection and equal benefit before the Law by dint of Article 27 of the Constitution and it therefore behoves this court to exercise the noble mandate bestowed upon it of ensuring enjoyment of the said right," she states in her affidavit.
The case is scheduled to be called on June 3, 2025 for further directions.
