Nairobi, Kenya – A constitutional petition has been filed at the High Court challenging the use of State House for partisan political activities, with the petitioner arguing that such practices are unconstitutional and undermine multiparty democracy.
The petition, lodged at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in Nairobi by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, names the Attorney General, the Comptroller of State House, the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party, and President William Ruto (in his official capacity) as respondents.
Key Demands of the Petition
The petitioner seeks several orders, including:
- A declaration that the use of State House for partisan political activities is unconstitutional.
- A permanent injunction barring all political parties from holding meetings, forums, or political activities at State House or State Lodges.
- An order compelling UDA to reimburse the State for all costs incurred during political activities held at State House.
- A directive requiring the Comptroller of State House to disclose the full costs of political activities conducted at State House.
Grounds for the Petition
According to court documents, Suyianka argues that State House and State Lodges are national institutions reserved strictly for official State functions, maintained using public funds approved by Parliament.
The petition lists several political meetings held at State House between April 2025 and February 2026, including engagements with regional leaders, party forums, and a UDA aspirants’ gathering that reportedly hosted thousands of members.
The petitioner contends that these were not official State functions but partisan activities, during which State House facilities, staff, security, logistics, catering, and communication infrastructure were used without public disclosure of costs or reimbursement.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
The petition cites alleged violations of multiple constitutional provisions, including Articles 10, 73, 75, 129, 131, 201, and 226, as well as sections of the Political Parties Act, which prohibit the use of public resources to promote political party interests.
Suyianka maintains that allowing a political party to use State House gives it an unfair advantage over other parties, erodes accountability, and blurs the constitutional distinction between the State and political organizations.
Conclusion
The case, now before the High Court, raises critical questions about the boundaries between State institutions and partisan politics. If successful, the petition could set a precedent restricting the use of State House for political party activities, reinforcing constitutional principles of transparency, accountability, and multiparty democracy.
