The High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality and venue of National Prayer Day, ruling that the events do not violate any constitutional rights.

🇰🇪 Breaking It Down

In its decision issued on Tuesday, May 26, the High Court held that while the petition challenging the legality of the event lacked merit, Parliament is still obligated to provide clarity on public expenditure linked to the National Prayer Breakfast.

The court declined to declare the annual event illegal, finding that the petitioner failed to properly plead that it violated Article 8 of the Constitution on separation of religion and State.

The court noted that although both sides made extensive submissions on whether the event amounted to the establishment of a State religion, the issue was not included in the petition, despite having the opportunity to amend it before the judgement.

📌 What You Need to Know

The court stated that while constitutional questions were raised during submissions on the legality of the event, those issues would require a separate inquiry and could not be determined in the present case.

On allegations that hosting the event at Safari Park Hotel was discriminatory, the court found no evidence of unfair exclusion, citing the venue’s selection through a procurement process compliant with constitutional provisions and its public accessibility, including through live broadcasts.

However, the court ordered the National Assembly to jointly or separately disclose how much public money is spent on the event within 30 days in an accessible format.

It found that the petitioner’s rights to access information and fair administrative action were violated after Parliament failed to provide the information requested in a letter dated March 13, 2025, even after the Commission on Administrative Justice intervened in July 2025.

The case was filed by lawyer Suyianka Lempaa, seeking to have Parliament release expenditure details for the 2025 National Prayer Breakfast and block the use of taxpayer funds for future editions of the event.

Lempaa argued that Parliament’s refusal to disclose the amount spent on the event violated constitutional provisions on accountability and access to information, further claiming that Parliament’s involvement in organising the prayer breakfast undermined the separation of powers and amounted to imprudent use of public resources.

📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke