The Office of the Attorney General has urged the High Court to dismiss a petition challenging President William Ruto’s decision to host political meetings at State House, terming the case “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.”
Petition Challenges State House Meetings
The case was filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, who argues that inviting members of the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) to State House amounts to misuse of public resources and violates the Constitution.
Suyianka contends that such meetings blur the line between official government functions and partisan political activities.
He is seeking court declarations that the use of State House for political engagements is unconstitutional, alongside orders compelling UDA to reimburse the State for costs incurred during the meetings.
Government’s Response
In response, the Attorney General, the Comptroller of State House, and UDA argue that the petition does not meet the legal threshold for a constitutional case.
They say the petitioner has failed to clearly demonstrate:
- Which constitutional provisions were violated
- How the alleged violations occurred
- Any harm suffered as a result
The government cited precedents such as Anarita Karimi Njeru v R (No 1) and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, which require petitions to precisely outline constitutional breaches.
Ruto Acted Within the Law
The respondents further argue that President Ruto acted within his constitutional mandate, pointing to Articles 131 and 132, which assign the President responsibilities including promoting national unity and coordinating government functions.
They maintain that hosting leaders and citizens at State House is part of facilitating governance and fostering inclusivity in a multi-party democracy.
Additionally, they cite Article 143, which grants the President immunity from civil proceedings for actions undertaken in official capacity.
Calls for Petition Dismissal
The government is now asking the High Court to dismiss the case with costs, arguing that it lacks clarity, fails to demonstrate constitutional violations, and does not meet the required legal standards.
What the Petitioner Wants
Suyianka, who filed the case at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in Nairobi, is also seeking:
- A permanent injunction barring political meetings at State House
- Accountability on the use of public resources during political events
- Reimbursement of costs incurred during alleged party activities
The court is expected to determine whether the petition raises valid constitutional questions or should be struck out as argued by the State.
