Lempaa Suiyanka Files Petition to Bar Ruto from hosting UDA Meetings at State House and State Lodges
Quote from Lawyer on February 10, 2026, 6:00 amA Nairobi lawyer has filed a constitutional petition at the High Court seeking to bar President William Ruto and the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) from using State House and State Lodges for political party activities.
The petition, lodged by advocate Lempaa Suiyanka at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division in Nairobi, argues that such use amounts to an unlawful deployment of public resources to advance partisan interests. It names President William Ruto (sued in his official capacity), the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), the Attorney General, and the Comptroller of State House as respondents.
The lawyer contends that State House is a constitutionally protected national institution funded entirely by public money, maintained through parliamentary appropriations, and staffed by public officers. He asserts that it should be reserved exclusively for official state functions, ceremonial engagements, or administrative government meetings, not for party meetings, caucuses, forums, or other political activities.
The petition highlights several recent events held at State House described as partisan in nature. These include a meeting with Gusii political leaders on August 15, 2025, a session with Kiambu grassroots leaders on August 27, 2025, consultations with Ukambani leaders on October 10, 2025, engagements with delegations from various western Kenya counties on June 5, 2025, a sitting of UDA's National Governing Council on January 26, 2026, and the inaugural UDA party aspirants forum for 2027 General Election hopefuls on February 4, 2026. The petitioner states these gatherings involved party officials, aspirants, and elected leaders acting in their political capacities rather than in official government roles.
Suiyanka argues that no public disclosure exists of any payments, reimbursements, invoices, or approvals covering costs such as security, logistics, catering, transport, or facility usage for these events. This lack of transparency and accountability, he claims, violates key constitutional principles.
The petition cites breaches of Article 10 of the Constitution, which enshrines national values including the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability. It also references violations of Section 14 of the Political Parties Act, which prohibits unlawful non-monetary benefits or undeclared donations to parties, as well as non-compliance with Articles 201 and 226 on public finance principles and accountability, alongside provisions of the Public Finance Management Act.
The lawyer warns that continued use of these venues for party purposes collapses the separation between state institutions and political parties, grants UDA an unfair advantage over other political players, institutionalizes illegality, normalizes the abuse of public resources, erodes public trust, and undermines the presidency as a symbol of national unity.
Among the reliefs sought are urgent conservatory orders to immediately restrain any further expenditure of public funds, resources, personnel, security, or facilities for political activities at State House or State Lodges. The court is asked to issue a permanent bar on all political parties holding such events at these premises.
Additional prayers include preservation orders directing the Comptroller of State House to safeguard all relevant records, such as visitor registers, security logs, catering details, transport arrangements, media usage, invoices, vouchers, and internal authorizations related to political gatherings.
The petitioner further requests a declaration that the practice constitutes unlawful expenditure of public resources and confers an impermissible political advantage contrary to constitutional democracy. He also seeks orders compelling UDA to reimburse the state for all costs incurred during past political activities at these venues.
The petition requests certification as urgent to prevent irreversible harm to constitutional governance and the boundaries between state and partisan interests.
A Nairobi lawyer has filed a constitutional petition at the High Court seeking to bar President William Ruto and the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) from using State House and State Lodges for political party activities.
The petition, lodged by advocate Lempaa Suiyanka at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division in Nairobi, argues that such use amounts to an unlawful deployment of public resources to advance partisan interests. It names President William Ruto (sued in his official capacity), the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), the Attorney General, and the Comptroller of State House as respondents.
The lawyer contends that State House is a constitutionally protected national institution funded entirely by public money, maintained through parliamentary appropriations, and staffed by public officers. He asserts that it should be reserved exclusively for official state functions, ceremonial engagements, or administrative government meetings, not for party meetings, caucuses, forums, or other political activities.
The petition highlights several recent events held at State House described as partisan in nature. These include a meeting with Gusii political leaders on August 15, 2025, a session with Kiambu grassroots leaders on August 27, 2025, consultations with Ukambani leaders on October 10, 2025, engagements with delegations from various western Kenya counties on June 5, 2025, a sitting of UDA's National Governing Council on January 26, 2026, and the inaugural UDA party aspirants forum for 2027 General Election hopefuls on February 4, 2026. The petitioner states these gatherings involved party officials, aspirants, and elected leaders acting in their political capacities rather than in official government roles.
Suiyanka argues that no public disclosure exists of any payments, reimbursements, invoices, or approvals covering costs such as security, logistics, catering, transport, or facility usage for these events. This lack of transparency and accountability, he claims, violates key constitutional principles.
The petition cites breaches of Article 10 of the Constitution, which enshrines national values including the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability. It also references violations of Section 14 of the Political Parties Act, which prohibits unlawful non-monetary benefits or undeclared donations to parties, as well as non-compliance with Articles 201 and 226 on public finance principles and accountability, alongside provisions of the Public Finance Management Act.
The lawyer warns that continued use of these venues for party purposes collapses the separation between state institutions and political parties, grants UDA an unfair advantage over other political players, institutionalizes illegality, normalizes the abuse of public resources, erodes public trust, and undermines the presidency as a symbol of national unity.
Among the reliefs sought are urgent conservatory orders to immediately restrain any further expenditure of public funds, resources, personnel, security, or facilities for political activities at State House or State Lodges. The court is asked to issue a permanent bar on all political parties holding such events at these premises.
Additional prayers include preservation orders directing the Comptroller of State House to safeguard all relevant records, such as visitor registers, security logs, catering details, transport arrangements, media usage, invoices, vouchers, and internal authorizations related to political gatherings.
The petitioner further requests a declaration that the practice constitutes unlawful expenditure of public resources and confers an impermissible political advantage contrary to constitutional democracy. He also seeks orders compelling UDA to reimburse the state for all costs incurred during past political activities at these venues.
The petition requests certification as urgent to prevent irreversible harm to constitutional governance and the boundaries between state and partisan interests.