Why AG Oduor is defending Ruto's State House political meetings

The Attorney General Dorcas Oduor has defended President William Ruto’s move to hold political and religious meetings at the State House.

In her response filed before the High Court, Oduor argued that Dr Ruto is a symbol of national unity, hence, can invite anyone or everyone to the house in the hill.

According to the AG, the case filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka failed to clearly state what the complaint was about.

She asserted that all Kenyans have a right to associate and join any political party of their choice.

“The President is also under an obligation to promote respect for the diversity of the people and communities of Kenya. Therefore, the invitation to State House is line with the Provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution. Under the Protected Areas Act, in particular, under section 3, the President has the discretion to invite any person, or group of people in to the State House,” said Oduor in her response filed by State advocate Christopher Marwa.

In the case, Lempaa argued that the President had no powers to hold political parties’ meetings at the State House. He said that it was illegal for the Head of State to call for such meetings as it allegedly amounted to misuse of public resources.

So far, there are four cases filed over the President’s meetings at State House and decision to build a church inside the protected property.

Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), 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, marginalizing other faiths or non-believers, and undermining the constitutional principle of religious neutrality,” their lawyer Lempaa Suyianka argued.

According to Suiyanka, the President’s actions amount to preferential treatment afforded to a particular faith.

He said that building a church at the state-owned property sets a bad precedent of institutionalizing religion despite the country having other religions and atheists.

“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 marginalizing non-adherents and violates the spirit of pluralism and equality enshrined in the Constitution,” the lawyer said.

The four lobby groups now join lawyer Levy Munyeri in a bid to block Dr Ruto’s project.

In his case, Lawyer Levi Munyeri said that Dr Ruto had admitted that he was building a church with a sitting capacity of 8,000.

He, however, argued that the project ought to have been subjected to the views of Kenyans and open to competitive bidding.

According to his lawyer Edwin Magu, 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 Magu.

According to him, the Constitution is clear that Kenya is a secular State. He stated that the project was being carried out in secrecy and in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Mango further said that the project was a recipe of religious tensions in the country as others equally had a right to demand their sanctuaries be built on the land where the house in the hill occupies.

“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, if allowed to continue with the construction of the said church at State House grounds, Nairobi,” said Mango.

In the case, Munyeri claimed that the President had discriminated against other religious groups. He questioned why Dr. Ruto was not building a mosque, a temple and a shrine, each worth the same amount of money as the church.

He said that the President’s actions amounted to endorsing Christianity as the superior religion in the country.

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 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. are likely to be irreparably harmed by construction of the church at State House,”he said.

In his supporting affidavit, Munyeri said that there is a detailed architectural design and drawing of the structure.

He said that the President had also admitted that there was an ongoing construction of a sanctuary.

The lawyer, however, argued that the construction was happening on public land; hence, the President could not build anything without approvals.

He alleged that although Ruto said that he was using his own money, there was a possibility that the church is being built from tax payers pockets.

“There is a likelihood that public funds are being secretly used for the construction of the megachurch, without public participation and approval by Parliament, as the allegations by the President that he is using his own funds are misleading and unrealistic,” he claimed.