Advocate Files Fresh Petition Challenging Alleged Political Use of State House by President Ruto
A High Court advocate, Lempaa Soyinka, has moved to court seeking orders to declare the alleged use of State House for partisan political activities unconstitutional.
In the petition filed before the High Court, the lawyer argues that State House, which is funded and maintained using public resources, should only be used for official government functions and not for activities linked to political party interests.
According to Soyinka, President William Ruto has allegedly been hosting meetings at State House that advance the political agenda of the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), the ruling party, instead of limiting the facility to official state duties, administrative meetings, or ceremonial functions as provided for under the Constitution.
The advocate maintains that such use blurs the line between government operations and party politics, raising serious constitutional and governance concerns.
In his filing, the lawyer argues that UDA, being a registered political party, is legally considered a private entity under the Political Parties Act. As such, he claims that any use of State House facilities for party-related engagements should attract payment or reimbursement to the government.
He notes that State House operations involve public expenditure, including security deployment, staff services, catering arrangements, logistical support, and communication infrastructure, all of which are financed by taxpayers.
The petition further claims that despite several political meetings allegedly taking place at State House, there has been no public disclosure indicating that UDA reimbursed the government for the use of these facilities.
Among the events cited in the case are meetings between President Ruto and leaders from different regions, including Gusii, Kiambu, Ukambani, Murang’a, Western Kenya, and Meru. The petitioner states that many of these engagements took place in 2025 and were political in nature.
Soyinka has named several respondents in the case, including the Attorney General, the Controller of State House, the United Democratic Alliance party, and President William Ruto himself.
The petition argues that allowing a political party to conduct its activities within State House creates an uneven political environment by giving the party in power an unfair advantage over others, especially when public resources are involved.
The advocate also points out that UDA already benefits from public funding through the Political Parties Fund and operates its own offices and organizational structures across the country.
He argues that this makes it unnecessary and unlawful for party activities to be conducted within a government facility meant strictly for state purposes.
In the court documents, Soyinka warns that failure by the High Court to address the matter decisively could set a dangerous precedent.
He argues that continued use of State House for partisan engagements risks normalizing the misuse of public resources and weakening the constitutional separation between the State and political parties.
According to him, such actions could gradually erode accountability and undermine public confidence in national institutions.
The petition emphasizes that State House and State Lodges are protected national institutions established solely for official state functions.
They are maintained through funds approved by Parliament and managed by public officers who are required to operate within the framework of the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, and other relevant laws.
The advocate is now asking the court to intervene and provide clear legal guidance on the boundaries between state functions and political party activities.
Join Tutam Official WhatsApp Channel to stay updated on time
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaWT5gSGufImU8R0DO30
