The facade of piety at Kenya’s National Prayer Breakfast has been pierced by a lawsuit demanding full accountability for the millions of taxpayer shillings spent on the event.

Lawyer Lempaa Suyianka has moved to the High Court, accusing Parliament of violating the Constitution by shielding the costs of the 2025 gathering from public scrutiny. His petition is a direct challenge to the culture of opacity that pervades legislative spending, transforming what is ostensibly a spiritual event into a battleground for transparency and accountability.

Piercing the Veil of Secrecy

Suyianka’s legal action targets the Parliamentary Service Commission, the National Assembly, and the Senate, arguing that their refusal to disclose the expenditure violates Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access information. Despite a formal request made in March 2025 and intervention by the Commission on Administrative Justice, Parliament has remained tight-lipped, burying the costs in opaque annual estimates.

The lawsuit seeks not only the disclosure of the 2025 figures but also an order barring the use of public funds for the 2026 edition. "Parliament’s involvement in organizing the National Prayer Breakfast violates the doctrine of separation of powers," Suyianka argues, contending that the event creates an unholy alliance between the state and religion at the taxpayer’s expense.

• Judicial Review: High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye has declined to issue interim orders but has set the matter for a full hearing, signaling that the court is willing to interrogate the merits of the case.
• Public Interest: The case highlights the growing demand for fiscal prudence in a country grappling with economic hardship, where lavish state-sponsored events are increasingly seen as tone-deaf.

A Question of Priorities

The National Prayer Breakfast has long been criticized as an elitist gathering that offers little value to the ordinary citizen. By dragging the event into the corridors of justice, Suyianka is forcing a national conversation about how public money is prioritized. Is it for prayer, or is it for the political posturing that invariably accompanies the event?

As the legal battle unfolds, Parliament finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend its spending on prayers while the nation watches. For a House that makes the laws, breaking the silence on its own expenses may be the hardest commandment to keep.