Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has welcomed the High Court’s decision to suspend the disciplinary action against Kitutu Chache South MP Anthony Kibagendi, terming it a critical step in checking what he described as abuse of power within Parliament.
In a reaction issued on Thursday, Sifuna said the ruling, which allows Kibagendi to resume his parliamentary duties, reaffirmed the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights.
However, he criticised the delay in securing the court order, arguing that the MP had already suffered unjust exclusion from the House.
“This is encouraging from our courts though it took inordinately long to get this order,” Sifuna said.
The senator directly faulted National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, accusing him of acting outside his legal mandate by suspending Kibagendi over remarks made during a televised interview.
According to Sifuna, parliamentary authority does not extend to regulating members’ conduct outside official proceedings.
“What Weta did was manifestly illegal and unconstitutional,” he stated. “Even people who never went to law school know a Speaker has no powers over members’ conduct outside Parliament.”
Sifuna further described the suspension as one of the most extreme examples of institutional overreach in recent parliamentary history.
He argued that penalising an elected leader for comments made on a public platform undermines both freedom of expression and the democratic mandate of constituents.
“Kicking an MP from Parliament for something he said on TV is one of the worst manifestations of abuse of power and impunity in the history of Parliament,” he added.
The High Court earlier issued conservatory orders halting Kibagendi’s suspension and barred Parliament from pursuing further disciplinary action pending the hearing of the case.
The ruling effectively cleared the MP to return to the House as the legal dispute continues.
Kibagendi had been suspended following remarks in which he criticised Parliament, claims that triggered action from the Speaker’s office.
He subsequently moved to court, arguing that his rights had been violated and that due process was not followed.
The case now sets the stage for a broader legal determination on the limits of parliamentary authority and the protection of elected leaders’ freedoms outside the chamber.