Sifuna and Babu Move to Court as Fresh Row Erupts Over Wetang’ula’s Suspension of Kibagendi

A fresh political and legal battle is now brewing in Parliament after the Linda Wananchi faction of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) announced plans to take National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula to court over the suspension of Kitutu Chache South MP Antony Kibagendi.

The faction, which is led by Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna and Embakasi East MP Babu Owino, accused the Speaker of acting outside the law by allowing the House to suspend the legislator despite an existing court order that had barred such action.

Speaking to journalists within Parliament buildings on Wednesday, April 1, the two leaders said they would move to court under a certificate of urgency in a bid to challenge the Speaker’s decision and defend the authority of the courts.

Babu Owino explained that the group intends to file a judicial review application seeking urgent intervention from the High Court.

According to him, the case will seek two major legal remedies aimed at restoring accountability and ensuring that parliamentary actions remain within the law.

He said the first order they will seek is mandamus, which would compel Speaker Wetang’ula to comply with the court orders that were issued last week.

The second is certiorari, which would seek to nullify the latest decision by the National Assembly to extend Kibagendi’s suspension by another 14 days.

The ODM lawmakers were reacting to the decision made by the National Assembly on Tuesday, March 31, when MPs voted to suspend Kibagendi for two weeks.

The move sparked controversy because it came just days after the High Court had already issued orders stopping Parliament from enforcing an earlier suspension against the same MP.

Kibagendi’s troubles began after comments he made during a television interview in February, where he openly questioned the independence of Parliament.

In his remarks, he claimed that the House had effectively been handed over to the Executive, raising concerns about whether MPs were still carrying out their oversight role without outside influence.

His comments angered several lawmakers, who viewed them as an attack on the dignity and reputation of Parliament.

Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah later tabled a motion in the House, arguing that the institution needed to defend its image and authority after the MP alleged that Parliament had been “auctioned.”

Following debate on the matter, MPs unanimously supported the motion to suspend the Kitutu Chache South lawmaker for 14 days.

The decision effectively locked him out of parliamentary business, preventing him from taking part in House proceedings, committee meetings, and even accessing his parliamentary office.

This latest punishment marks the second time Kibagendi has found himself suspended over the same set of remarks.

The first suspension happened in mid-February, when Speaker Wetang’ula termed the MP’s statements reckless and damaging to the image of the House.

At the time, the Speaker declared that Kibagendi would not be allowed to participate in any parliamentary activities until he submitted what he described as a properly worded apology.

He also ordered that the apology be presented to the Clerk of the National Assembly for review before the MP could be considered for readmission.

Wetang’ula went as far as declaring Kibagendi “a stranger in the House,” a strong statement that highlighted the seriousness with which Parliament viewed the issue.

However, the matter quickly shifted from the political arena to the courts. Just two days after the first suspension, the High Court stepped in and temporarily lifted the punishment after a petition challenging the Speaker’s decision was filed.

The court ruled that the suspension should remain lifted until the case is heard and fully determined, effectively allowing Kibagendi to resume his parliamentary duties in the meantime.

It is this court order that the Linda Wananchi faction now says was ignored by the Speaker and the House in issuing the latest 14-day suspension.

Their decision to return to court now sets the stage for a major legal showdown that could test the limits of parliamentary privilege and the obligation of Parliament to obey judicial orders.

The unfolding dispute is expected to reignite debate over the balance of power between Parliament and the Judiciary, especially on whether the National Assembly can proceed with disciplinary action when there is already an active court order in place.

Join Kenya Govt Official WhatsApp Channel to stay updated on time
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaWT5gSGufImU8R0DO30