Disclose how much you spend on prayer breakfast, court orders Parliament
National
By
Kamau Muthoni
| May 27, 2026
The High Court in Nairobi has ordered Parliament to disclose how much it spends on the annual National Prayer Breakfast.
Justice Gregory Mutai said it was against the right to information for the House to deny the taxpayers details on how their money was spent.
He ordered the National Assembly to provide the requested information within 30 days in a format that is accessible to laymen.
However, the judge declined to declare the annual event as unconstitutional. Justice Mutai observed that although the issue of establishing a state religion raised by the petitioner was important, it needed to be pursued separately in a fresh case.
READ MORE
There's growing disconnect between government, people on economy
What some customers do to sabotage your business, brand
When you tax the seed, then do not expect any harvest
The credit controller knows where the bodies are buried: Time CFO started listening
How intellectual property unlocks startup funding
HF Group changes name to HFCB after rebrand
Davis Shirtliff targets West and North Africa expansion as it marks 80 years
Capital markets stakeholders push for tax reforms in Finance Bill 2026
Private sector calls for PAYE tax cut in Finance Bill 2026
Appeal Court rejects tycoon's bid for priority refund in Imperial Bank case
“As serious questions on the constitutionality of the National Prayer Breakfast were raised in the submissions, the same must be the subject of a separate inquiry and not this petition,” said Justice Mutai.
He also rejected the argument by the Parliament and the Attorney General that the court had no powers to hear the case filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka.
Already, there is a separate case questioning the building of an 8,000-capacity church at the State House.
Four civil society groups sued President William Ruto, claiming that he was undermining the Constitution.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission, Transparency International Kenya, Inuka Kenya ni Sisi, Institute of Social Accountability, in their case filed before the High Court, argued that the construction of a church violates Article 8 of the Constitution, which provides that there is no State religion.
“By privileging Christianity through such state-linked infrastructure, the government risks entrenching religious favouritism, marginalising other faiths or non-believers, and undermining the constitutional principle of religious neutrality,” they argued.
They said that building a church on the State-owned property sets a bad precedent.
“This act infringes upon the rights of Kenyans who profess different religious beliefs or none at all, by signalling a form of state preference or alignment with a specific religion. Such a precedent risks marginalising non-adherents and violates the spirit of pluralism and equality enshrined in the Constitution,” they said.
The four lobby groups now join lawyer Levy Munyeri in a bid to block Dr Ruto’s project. In his case, Munyeri argued that the project ought to have been subjected to the views of Kenyans and open to competitive bidding.
According to him, the President cannot use his resources, as a private citizen, to carry out a government project.
“The construction of a church on public land using the resources of a private citizen undermines well-established constitutional provisions of no state religion, national values of public participation, transparency, rule of law, equality and non-discrimination,” argued the petitioner.
Munyeri questioned why Ruto was not building a mosque, a temple and a shrine.
He further said that the project was a recipe for religious tensions in the country, as others equally had a right to demand their sanctuaries be built on the land.
“There is an eminent risk of the construction of a church at State House grossly undermining the constitutional provision that declares that there is no state religion and the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State.”
The lawyer asserted that the State House does not need a church, as this is not part of the Presidential functions.
“Unless the orders sought herein are granted, the presidency will technically impose a state religion, dilute the separation of state and religion and set a dangerous precedent on the use of public land by private citizens, all constitutional infractions that may be irreparable by the final orders of this court upon full hearing of this petition,” he said.