NAIROBI, Kenya- A constitutional petition has been filed at the High Court seeking to bar the use of State House and State Lodges for partisan political activities, arguing that the practice violates the Constitution and undermines multiparty democracy.
The petition, lodged at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in Nairobi by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, claims that public resources have been unlawfully deployed to advance the interests of the ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party.
Named as respondents are the Attorney General, the Comptroller of State House, UDA, and President William Ruto, who has been sued in his official capacity.
The petitioner wants the court to compel UDA to reimburse the State for all costs incurred during political activities allegedly held at State House and State Lodges. He is also seeking a permanent injunction barring all political parties from holding meetings, forums, or any partisan activities at the premises.
According to court documents, the petition 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 case lists several political meetings allegedly hosted at State House between April 2025 and February 2026, including engagements with regional political leaders, party meetings, and a UDA aspirants’ forum said to have attracted thousands of party members and officials.
Mr Suyianka contends that the gatherings were not State functions but partisan political events involving party officials, aspirants, and elected leaders acting in their political capacities.
He argues that State House facilities — including 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 allegedly used during the events, contrary to constitutional principles of accountability and transparency.
The lawyer argues that allowing a political party to use State House confers an unfair political advantage over rival parties, weakens multiparty democracy, and erodes the constitutional separation between the State and political organisations.
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 incurred during such events.
