A constitutional petition has been filed at the High Court seeking to outlaw what the petitioners describe as the growing practice of public officials branding taxpayer-funded projects, assets and government programmes with their personal names, images, slogans and political identities.
The petitioner argues that the trend, increasingly witnessed across national and county governments, violates the Constitution by transforming public resources into instruments of personal political promotion.
The petition, brought by James Ochieng against the Attorney General, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Commission on Administrative Justice (Office of the Ombudsman), the National Assembly, the Public Service Commission, and the Council of Governors, challenges what it terms a widespread culture in which elected and appointed leaders place their portraits, names, initials, campaign slogans, and personal logos on government vehicles, public buildings, school buses, ambulances, relief food, water tanks, road projects, official communications, uniforms, and even government social media platforms.
According to the petition, such branding creates the false impression that public projects are personal gifts from political leaders rather than services financed through taxes and public revenue.
“The Constitution does not permit public office to be converted into a platform for personal glorification or political advertising using public resources,” the petition states.
The petitioner argues that public assets belong collectively to the people of Kenya and not to the individuals temporarily entrusted with public office. As such, government-funded projects should remain politically neutral and free from personal identifiers capable of advancing individual political interests.
The court papers contend that branding publicly funded infrastructure with personal identities undermines constitutional values of integrity, accountability, equality, transparency and prudent use of public resources. The petition further argues that the practice amounts to an indirect misuse of public funds because taxpayers ultimately finance the publicity enjoyed by individual office holders.
“The use of taxpayer-funded assets to display the names, images or political slogans of serving public officers amounts to an unconstitutional appropriation of public property for private political benefit,” the petition says.
The petitioner maintains that while government institutions may legitimately display official symbols such as the Coat of Arms, county emblems or institutional logos, there is no constitutional or statutory basis for including the personal branding of politicians or public officers on government property. Beyond declarations that the practice is unconstitutional, the petition seeks far-reaching orders that would permanently prohibit all State organs, county governments, ministries, departments, agencies and public officers from displaying personal names, portraits, campaign slogans, initials, political colours or logos on publicly funded assets and communications.
It also asks the court to compel the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Public Service Commission and the Commission on Administrative Justice to develop and enforce regulations governing the identification and branding of public projects. The petitioner wants clear standards requiring all government-funded infrastructure and assets to bear only official government insignia and descriptive project information.
In addition, the petition seeks mandatory orders directing the removal of existing personal branding from taxpayer-funded projects, vehicles, buildings, equipment and official communication materials within a period to be determined by the court.
The case also asks the court to affirm that public resources cannot lawfully be used to confer political advantage upon serving office holders, arguing that such practices compromise electoral fairness by allowing incumbents to benefit from continuous taxpayer-funded publicity.
“The people finance these projects through taxation. Public officers merely hold office in trust and cannot claim ownership, authorship or personal credit for public property,” the petition argues.
If successful, the petition could significantly reshape how national and county governments identify public projects across Kenya. It may require the removal of thousands of personal names and images currently displayed on government-funded infrastructure and establish constitutional guidelines separating public administration from personal political branding.
The matter now awaits directions from the High Court on the hearing of the constitutional challenge.
