The sanctity of State House is on trial. A high-stakes petition has been filed at the High Court seeking to bar President William Ruto and the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) from using the official presidential residence for political party meetings, arguing it is a brazen violation of the Constitution.

Lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, the petitioner, has moved to court to demand a declaration that the use of State House for partisan activities is unconstitutional. The lawsuit accuses the President of blurring the lines between the state and the party, effectively turning the symbol of national unity into a UDA branch office. The petition cites the recent UDA National Governing Council (NGC) meeting held at State House as "Exhibit A" of this alleged impunity.

The Cost of Politics

At the heart of the suit is the issue of public resources. State House is funded by the Kenyan taxpayer—every bulb, every cup of tea, and every security officer is paid for by the public, regardless of their political affiliation. Suyianka argues that when UDA holds its strategy meetings there, it is misappropriating public funds for private gain.

"State House is a national monument, a symbol of our sovereignty," Suyianka stated in his filing. "It does not belong to UDA. It belongs to the people of Kenya." The lawyer is seeking a court order compelling the ruling party to refund the government for all expenses incurred during these meetings, including catering, logistics, and security costs.

• Constitutional Breach: The petition leans heavily on Articles that mandate the neutrality of public offices. By hosting UDA delegates, the President is accused of giving his party an unfair advantage over the opposition, who do not have access to state machinery.
• The Respondents: The case lists the Attorney General, the State House Comptroller, the UDA party, and President Ruto (in his official capacity) as respondents. It is a direct legal challenge to the President's administrative style.
• Opposition Echoes: The suit mirrors complaints from opposition leaders like Peter Salasya, who have previously slammed the "UDA-fication" of state institutions.

A Test for the Judiciary

This case presents a significant test for the Judiciary. Ruling against the President on the management of his own official residence would be a bold assertion of judicial independence. However, dismissing the case could set a precedent that normalizes the fusion of party and state, a regression to the days of the single-party era.

As the legal papers are served, the political class is watching closely. If Suyianka wins, UDA might receive a hefty bill for their tea and mandazi. If he loses, State House could officially become the busiest political headquarters in the region. The gavel is now in the court's hand.