A constitutional challenge has been lodged at the High Court seeking to stop the use of State House and State Lodges for partisan political activities, arguing that such conduct violates the Constitution and unfairly advantages the ruling party.
The petition, filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division in Nairobi, was brought by advocate Lempaa Suyianka, who claims that State resources have been improperly deployed to advance the political interests of the United Democratic Alliance (UDA).
In this case, the Attorney General, President William Ruto, sued in his official capacity, the Comptroller of State House, and UDA have been named as respondents.
The lawyer is asking the court to issue a declaration that "holding political party activities at State House is unconstitutional and to permanently bar all political parties from using the premises for meetings, forums, or similar engagements."
He is also seeking orders compelling UDA to refund the government for all expenses incurred during political events allegedly hosted at State House and State Lodges.
According to the court filings, the petitioner argues that the State House is a national institution established solely for official government business and funded through public resources approved by Parliament.
He contends that its use for party activities breaches constitutional principles governing the separation between the State and political organisations.
The petition outlines several meetings said to have taken place at State House between April 2025 and February 2026, including engagements with regional political leaders, internal party meetings, and a UDA aspirants’ forum that reportedly attracted thousands of party members and officials.
The lawyer maintains that these "gatherings were political in nature rather than official State functions, involving party officials, aspirants, and elected leaders acting in their partisan capacities."
He argues that State House facilities, security services, staff, catering, logistics, and communication infrastructure were utilised during the events.
However, the petition claims that there has been no public disclosure on the costs incurred during the meetings or whether any reimbursement was made to the State by UDA.
The Comptroller of State House is accused of failing to account for the use of public resources during the events, allegedly in violation of constitutional standards on transparency, accountability, and responsible use of public funds.
The petitioner further argues that "allowing one political party to access State House confers an unfair advantage over rival parties, weakens multiparty democracy, and blurs the constitutional boundary between government institutions and political organisations."
In support of his case, the lawyer cites alleged breaches of several constitutional provisions, including Articles 10, 73, 75, 129, 131, 201, and 226, as well as sections of the Political Parties Act that prohibit the use of public resources to promote partisan interests.
