The Office of the Attorney General has asked the High Court to dismiss a constitutional petition seeking to stop Parliament and related offices from hosting the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast at a five-star hotel, arguing that the case discloses no constitutional violation and improperly invites judicial interference in parliamentary processes.
Petition Background
The petition was filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, who sued the Parliamentary Service Commission, the National Assembly, the Senate, the Attorney General, and the Commission on Administrative Justice. He seeks orders to stop the organisation of the national prayer event using public funds, asking the court to certify the matter as urgent and issue interim restraining orders pending determination of the main petition.
Attorney General’s Grounds of Opposition
In documents filed before the court, the Attorney General listed as the 4th respondent argued:
- No cause of action has been established against his office.
- Reliance on Article 35 (access to information) is misplaced, as the right is not absolute and must be pursued through statutory procedures under the Access to Information Act and parliamentary processes.
- Allegations of discrimination under Article 27 are vague and unsupported, with no evidence of differential treatment or prohibited grounds identified.
- Holding an event at a particular venue, including a five-star hotel, does not amount to discrimination.
- The petition improperly invites the court to interfere with internal parliamentary processes, contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers.
- On public expenditure, the petition fails to demonstrate illegality or misappropriation, instead questioning the prudence of venue choice and cost which does not amount to a constitutional dispute.
Constitutional Threshold
The Attorney General further argued that the petition fails to meet the required constitutional threshold for precision in pleadings, urging the court to dismiss it with costs.
