In a statement released by the party’s secretariat, ODM distanced itself from Orengo’s assertions that he played a central role in influencing or litigating matters related to the distribution of funds among political parties.
The party emphasized that its official position and legal strategy in the case were handled through established party structures and duly appointed legal representatives.
The dispute revolves around the contentious allocation of the Political Parties Fund, a pool of public resources distributed to registered political parties based on their electoral performance and representation.
The issue has drawn attention in recent months, with several parties raising concerns over transparency, fairness, and adherence to constitutional guidelines.
Orengo, a senior lawyer and longtime ODM figure, had earlier suggested that his legal expertise and involvement were instrumental in shaping the party’s stance in the case.
However, ODM has now pushed back against that narrative, stating that while Orengo remains a respected member of the party, his claims do not reflect the official position or the internal processes followed.
Also Read
“The party wishes to clarify that all legal matters concerning the Political Parties Fund were handled through the party’s recognized legal channels,” the statement read in part.
The clarification signals emerging tensions within ODM, particularly among senior members with strong political and legal influence.
While the party did not directly criticize Orengo, the tone of the statement suggests a desire to maintain institutional authority and prevent individual leaders from appearing to speak on behalf of the party without mandate.
Political analysts note that the development could point to deeper undercurrents within ODM as it navigates internal cohesion and public messaging.
Orengo, known for his outspoken nature and legal acumen, has often been at the forefront of high-profile political and constitutional debates in Kenya.
Efforts to reach Orengo for comment were unsuccessful by the time of publication. However, sources close to the governor indicate that he stands by his earlier remarks and may issue a detailed response.
The controversy comes at a time when political parties are under increased scrutiny over their use of public funds and internal governance.
ODM’s move to clarify its position may be aimed at safeguarding its credibility and ensuring consistency in its public communication.
As the matter unfolds, it is likely to spark further debate within political circles and could have implications for how parties manage internal dissent and external representation in sensitive legal matters.
