Tribunal to settle fight over rival ‘Linda’ party names

By  Joseph Wangui

Correspondent

Nation Media Group

What you need to know:

• The decision will determine whether the Registrar of Political Parties acted lawfully in rejecting Senator Edwin Sifuna’s Linda Mwananchi Movement.
• The appeal was filed by Mr Sifuna’s allies Suba South MP Caroli Omondi, former LSK president Faith Odhiambo and political activist Pauline Njoroge.

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has concluded hearing a case over control of the “Linda” political identity, with two rival groups contesting registration of names ahead of the 2027 General Election.

The decision, scheduled for September 30, will determine whether the Registrar of Political Parties acted lawfully in rejecting Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna’s Linda Mwananchi Movement while allowing Phenasio Thuku’s Liberty National Democratic Alliance, known as LINDA, to pursue registration.

The appeal was filed by Mr Sifuna’s allies Suba South MP Caroli Omondi, former Law Society of Kenya president Faith Odhiambo and political activist Pauline Njoroge.

They challenged the Registrar’s letter dated August 7, 2026, declining to reserve Linda Mwananchi Movement, or LMM.

Accusing the Registrar of bias, the appellants argued that the office had applied the law selectively by protecting Liberty National Democratic Alliance while rejecting Linda Mwananchi Movement despite the differences between the two names.

The appellants said they applied to reserve the name on June 4, 2026. The application was rejected on June 11 on grounds of “public interest”. They said the Registrar later agreed to reserve it after a meeting on August 4, only to reverse that position three days later.

Their lawyers Tony Moses Odera and Victor Olao said the later decision introduced LINDA as the reason for rejection, although the earlier letter had not mentioned the rival party. 

The lawyers argued that the office omitted the words “registered political party” or “provisionally registered political party”, creating a misleading impression about LINDA’s status.

“The names are different. The name Linda Mwananchi Movement, abbreviated as LMM, and Liberty National Democratic Alliance, abbreviated as LNDA, do not sound the same. They are not spelled the same. Their symbols will not be the same. Their slogans will not be the same. As a result, we challenge the decision of August 7 and pray that the Tribunal allows our appeal,” said Mr Odera.

The appellants relied on lists of fully and provisionally registered parties, saying neither contained an outfit known as LINDA. They argued that “Linda Mwananchi Movement” and “Liberty National Democratic Alliance” were neither visually nor phonetically similar enough to confuse a reasonable voter.

Mr Odera said the words “Liberty”, “National”, “Democratic” and “Alliance” appeared in several existing party names. He argued that the Registrar could not fairly protect one combination of generic words while rejecting another.

“How can Liberty National Democratic Alliance be allowed to use those generic words, but when other people seek different names, they are told they cannot use them? That is a decision based on bias,” he argued.

The lawyers also challenged Liberty National Democratic Alliance’s standing, arguing that it was not fully or provisionally registered and therefore did not meet Section 16(1)(b) of the Political Parties Act. They said officials of the party abandoned the registration process last year and hence they could not be deemed to have acquired ownership of the outfit.

In addition, they said the Liberty National Democratic Alliance could not be abbreviated as LINDA but the correct abbreviation should be LNDA.

However, the Registrar’s lawyer defended the decision and said name reservations were handled on a first-come, first-served basis. She said LINDA’s application was made in 2024 and allowed by a letter dated November 15, 2024.

The Tribunal heard that the Registrar must prevent names or abbreviations likely to confuse voters or members of the public. Sections 4B and 8 of the Act, its advocate argued, applied even before a party obtained full registration.

“The Registrar need not wait until full registration to reject a confusing name,” Registrar’s advocate, Ms Mercy Kiptoo, argued, warning that parties could otherwise recruit members, open offices and build structures before being stopped.

For its part, Liberty National Democratic Alliance, said the appellants lacked locus standi because some correspondence was sent by advocates without clearly identifying the applicants. The lawyer, Mr Wilberforce Okello, said earlier applications for Linda-related names had been made in February 2026, giving his clients prior rights.

He maintained that party registration was a continuing process involving name reservation, provisional registration and full registration. He said “LINDA” was a distinctive political brand, not merely ordinary words.

The Tribunal questioned how a reservation could remain effective beyond the statutory 90-day period. Ms Kiptoo said administrative practice allowed continued engagement where an application had been submitted in time and documents were being corrected or resubmitted.

The panel chaired by Innocent Muganda also asked why the actual provisional-registration application had not been attached to the record. The Registrar’s lawyer referred to other documents forming part of the application, but acknowledged that the document was not indexed.

In reply, Mr Odera said the law provided no extension beyond 90 days. He argued that an earlier applicant who failed to act or appeal within the prescribed period could not indefinitely block later applicants.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.