An advocate has filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that the use of State House for partisan political activities is unconstitutional.
In the petition lawyer Lempaa Suyianka argues that public resources have been unlawfully deployed to advance the interests of the ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party.
The petition names the Attorney General, the Comptroller of State House, the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), and President William Ruto, sued in his official capacity, as respondents.
The petitioner wants the court to issue orders compelling UDA to reimburse the State for all costs incurred during political activities held at State House and State Lodges.
He is also seeking a permanent injunction barring all political parties from holding meetings, forums, or political activities at State House.
According to court documents, the petitioner argues that State House and State Lodges are national institutions reserved strictly for official State functions and are maintained using public funds approved by Parliament.
The petition lists several political meetings allegedly held at State House between April 2025 and February 2026, including engagements with regional political leaders, party meetings, and a UDA aspirants’ forum that reportedly hosted thousands of party members and officials.
The petitioner contends that these gatherings were not State functions, but political party activities involving party officials, aspirants, and elected leaders acting in their political capacities.
He argues that State House facilities, security, staff, logistics, catering, and communication infrastructure were used during the meetings, yet no public disclosure has been made on the costs incurred or whether UDA reimbursed the State.
The petition further accuses the Comptroller of State House of failing to account for public resources used during the events, contrary to constitutional principles of accountability and transparency.
The lawyer maintains that allowing a political party to use State House gives it an unfair political advantage over other parties, undermines multiparty democracy, and erodes the constitutional distinction between the State and political parties.
He cites alleged violations of several 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.
Among the orders sought, the petitioner wants the court to declare the use of State House for partisan political activities unconstitutional and compel the Comptroller of State House to disclose the full costs of political activities held at State House.
