The case, filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, claims that public resources were unlawfully deployed to advance the interests of the ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party.
According to the petition, State House, which is constitutionally designated as an official residence and office of the President, should not be used as a venue for party mobilisation, political strategy meetings, or activities that promote a specific political formation.
Suyianka said that such actions violate key constitutional principles, including the separation between the State and political parties, as well as the requirement that public resources be used strictly for public purposes.
At the centre of the case is Article 73 of the Constitution, which outlines the responsibilities of leadership and integrity.
The article requires state officers to exercise authority in a manner that promotes public confidence and avoids misuse of public office for personal or partisan gain.
The petition argues that when State House is used to host party leaders or to coordinate political messaging, it blurs the line between government and party, undermining constitutional neutrality.
Suyianka further cited Article 232 on the values and principles of public service, which emphasises accountability, transparency, and efficient use of public resources.
He said that taxpayers fund State House operations, including security, logistics, and staffing, and that using such facilities for party business amounts to indirect public financing of a political party.
The petition comes against a backdrop of increasing political activity at State House, where President Ruto has frequently hosted elected leaders, many of them affiliated with UDA, for what critics describe as overtly political engagements.
While the government has maintained that such meetings fall within the President’s consultative role, the petition challenges this interpretation, arguing that political consultation should not translate into partisan campaigning using state infrastructure.
Legally, the case raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of executive power.
Kenya’s constitutional framework seeks to insulate public institutions from political capture, especially given the country’s history of state resources being used to entrench ruling parties.
Lempaa Suyianka’s argument is that allowing State House to function as a de facto party headquarters sets a dangerous precedent that erodes democratic fairness.
0 Comments