A fresh constitutional petition has been filed at the High Court challenging what has been described as the growing use of State House for partisan political activities by President William Ruto and the ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party.
The petition, filed by advocate Lempaa Soyinka, seeks a declaration that the use of State House — a public facility maintained using taxpayers’ money — for political party meetings and strategy sessions is unconstitutional, unlawful and a misuse of public resources.
In his court papers, Soyinka argues that State House is a national public asset and should only be used for official government business, including state functions, ceremonial duties and administrative meetings directly connected to the running of government.
According to the petitioner, allowing a political party to conduct its internal affairs and mobilisation activities at State House violates the principles of public finance management, political neutrality of public institutions and equality of political competition guaranteed under the Constitution.
“The continued use of State House for partisan political purposes collapses the constitutional boundary between the State and political parties,” Soyinka states in the petition.
The petition specifically cites a series of meetings hosted at State House in 2025, which the advocate claims were organised by the United Democratic Alliance and attended by party leaders and political delegations drawn from different regions of the country.
Among the meetings listed in the court documents are sessions involving political leaders from Gusii, Kiambu, Ukambani, Murang’a, Western Kenya and Meru regions. The petitioner argues that the nature, composition and objectives of the meetings clearly demonstrate that they were political party engagements rather than official government consultations.
Soyinka contends that the meetings were conducted using State House facilities and services, including security, government staff, logistics, transport coordination and catering, all of which are funded through public resources.
Despite this extensive use of state infrastructure, the petition claims there is no record of any reimbursement or compensation made by UDA to the government for the services and facilities used.
The advocate maintains that such arrangements amount to the indirect financing of a political party by the State, a practice he argues is expressly prohibited under Kenya’s constitutional and statutory framework governing public finance and political parties.
He further warns that the continued hosting of party meetings at State House grants UDA an unfair and unconstitutional advantage over other political parties.
“Public resources should not be deployed to advance the political interests of one party at the expense of others,” Soyinka states, adding that the practice undermines the principle of fair political competition.
The petition also raises concerns over the broader implications of allowing political parties to operate from state-controlled premises, warning that it risks normalising the use of public offices and national symbols for political mobilisation.
According to Soyinka, State House is not an ordinary public facility but a powerful national institution that represents the authority and neutrality of the State.
He argues that when partisan activities are conducted within its premises, the distinction between the Presidency as a constitutional office and the President as a party leader becomes blurred.
The court filing further states that such practices threaten public confidence in the impartiality of state institutions and weaken constitutional safeguards meant to protect democratic governance.
In the case, the advocate has named President William Ruto, the Attorney General, the Controller of State House, and the United Democratic Alliance party as respondents.
The petition asks the High Court to issue declarations that:
- State House should only be used for official government, ceremonial and administrative functions;
- the use of State House for UDA political activities is unconstitutional and unlawful; and
- any future use of State House for partisan political meetings should be prohibited.
Soyinka is also seeking orders compelling the relevant state offices to put in place clear guidelines and controls to prevent political parties from accessing or utilising State House facilities for their private or partisan activities.
The case adds to ongoing national debate over the separation between government operations and party politics, particularly under Kenya’s constitutional framework, which emphasises accountability in the use of public resources and political neutrality of public institutions.
The respondents are yet to file their responses to the petition.
If admitted and heard, the case is expected to test the limits of presidential authority in hosting political actors at State House and could set a significant precedent on how state facilities may be used by elected leaders who also hold senior positions within political parties.
