The High Court has thrown out a petition seeking to declare Kenya’s annual National Prayer Breakfast unconstitutional, ruling that the high-profile event does not discriminate against any section of the public and remains accessible to all citizens.
In a detailed judgment delivered on Tuesday by Justice Gregory Mutai, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish any violation of Article 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination. The judge emphasised that the choice of Safari Park Hotel as the venue did not amount to unfair treatment, as the event is open to the general public through live broadcasts and other arrangements.
“The event is reasonably accessible and inputs have been made to broadcast the same,” Justice Mutai stated, adding that the petitioner had not demonstrated any concrete discriminatory impact arising from the venue selection. Respondents in the case informed the court that Safari Park Hotel was chosen through a transparent procurement process that complied with Article 227 of the Constitution, which governs public procurement.
However, the court stopped short of issuing a definitive ruling on whether the National Prayer Breakfast contravenes Article 8, the constitutional provision that prohibits the establishment of a state religion. Justice Mutai noted that while parties made extensive submissions regarding secularism, the relationship between religion and the state, and the use of public resources for religious events, these arguments were not properly pleaded in the original petition.
“Submissions are not pleadings,” the judge said firmly. He pointed out that the petitioner had ample opportunity to amend the petition and formally include claims under Article 8 but failed to do so before the matter proceeded to judgment. As a result, the court ruled that serious constitutional questions surrounding the prayer breakfast must be the subject of a separate and properly framed inquiry rather than being determined in this case.
Despite dismissing the core constitutional and discrimination claims, Justice Mutai upheld part of the petition concerning transparency. The court found that the National Assembly, the Senate, and the Parliamentary Service Commission violated the petitioner’s rights to access information and fair administrative action under Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution.
The violation occurred after the respondents failed to provide a timely and adequate response to a formal request for information submitted by the petitioner on March 13, 2025. Lawyer Lempaa Soyianka, who filed the case, had written to the clerks of both houses of Parliament seeking detailed breakdowns of the costs, funding structure, and expenditures related to the annual event. A follow-up letter sent on June 9 received no substantive reply.
The matter was later referred to the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), which sought clarification from Parliament. In response, the Clerk of the National Assembly indicated that the request was still under consideration by the Parliamentary Service Commission, while the Senate stated that a response was being prepared. A subsequent communication dated July 17, 2025, explained that the event is funded through parliamentary expenditure estimates approved by Parliament and audited by the Office of the Auditor-General.
Justice Mutai described these explanations as insufficient, stressing that public institutions must promote transparency and accountability, especially when public funds are involved. “The respondents are not sure why it would be necessary to withhold such information or to provide it in a manner that is accessible to lay Kenyans without accounting knowledge,” he observed. The judge further referenced Article 10 of the Constitution, which obligates state organs to uphold principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability.
As a remedy, the court directed the first, second, and third respondents, the National Assembly, Senate, and Parliamentary Service Commission, jointly and severally to furnish the requested information within 30 days. The details must be presented in a clear, simple format that ordinary citizens can easily understand. The Commission on Administrative Justice was exonerated, with the court commending it for handling the complaint diligently and responding promptly.
The petition had been filed by Lempaa Soyianka in a bid to prevent Parliament from organising the 2026 edition of the National Prayer Breakfast using taxpayers’ money. Soyianka argued that the use of state resources for the event undermined the constitutional separation between religion and the state.
The National Prayer Breakfast, which was first introduced in Kenya in 2003, is an annual parliamentary initiative that brings together political leaders, religious figures, business executives, and other dignitaries to pray for the nation. The 2026 event is scheduled for May 28 at Safari Park Hotel in Nairobi and is expected to be graced by President William Ruto alongside members of the National Assembly, Senate, and other invited guests. Its stated purpose is to provide a platform for leaders from all sectors of society to meet, interact, and collectively seek divine guidance for the country.
