Introduction
1. According to its website, the Kenya National Prayer Breakfast is “an annual nonpartisan event that brings together leaders from all sectors of society to pray for the nation, seek reconciliation and foster unity across political, religious and ethnic lines.” It is intended to “cultivate a culture of ethical leadership and national unity grounded in prayer and shared values.”
2. The event was first held in 2003 and has taken place annually since then. It is part of an international movement spanning 180 countries. The movement began in 1953 in the United States of America and has since spread worldwide. Its core values are unity, prayer, purpose, and reconciliation.
3. The above-stated website states that the 2026 edition shall be held on Thursday, the 28th day of May 2026, between 7 and 11 am at the Safari Park Hotel in Thika Road, Nairobi. The event will bring together 2000 leaders, including the President of the Republic of Kenya, and is coordinated by the speakers of the Senate and the National Assembly, and shall be attended by leaders from across political, religious and ethnic lines, with the aim of praying together for the Republic of Kenya and to foster ethical leadership.
The Petition dated 9th February 2026.
4. The petitioner, Lempaa Suyianka, filed the petition dated 9th February 2026, in which he contended that he made a freedom of information request on 13th March 2025, seeking information on the 2025 edition of the National Prayer Breakfast. The information wasn’t provided, and on 9th June 2025, he wrote to the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate expressing his disappointment over the denial of the said information. Subsequently, the Commission on Administrative Justice wrote to the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate, urging them to provide the requisite information. The petitioner subsequently received communication from the Parliamentary Service Commission to the effect that the National Prayer Breakfast was included in the Commission's annual estimates of expenditure, which were tabled in Parliament in accordance with Article 221 of the Constitution.
5. The petitioner was aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to supply the information sought, to being referred to the Auditor General, and was apprehensive that no information would be provided to him unless the court intervened.
6. The petitioner avers that the failure to provide the information fought violates Article 10 (on values and principle), Article 35 (on freedom of information), the doctrine of separation of powers, Article 201 (d) (on prudent use of public money, Article 27 on non-discrimination and Articles 94, 95 and 96 (on the roles of Parliament and its various houses) of the Constitution of Kenya as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, in his view, purport to pray for Kenyans
“without their involvement”.
7. The petitioner therefore sought that the following orders, which I shall reproduce verbatim:
1. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 1st respondent to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to respond to the ATI letter on the National Prayer Breakfast is a violation of the right to access to information;
2. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 1st respondent to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to publicize the information in accordance with Article 35(3) on the basis of the Petitioner's request dated March 13th, 2025 is a violation of Article 10 of the Constitution, and specifically the values of the rule of law, participation of the people, human rights, good governance, transparency and accountability;
3. That a declaration be issued that the use of public money in a five-star hotel by Members of Parliament is violative of Article 201 of the Constitution;
4. That an Order be issued compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents to forthwith provide, at the Respondents' cost, information sought by the Petitioner in their letter to the Respondent dated March 13th, 2025;
5. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 1st respondent to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to publicize the information in accordance with Article 35(3) on the basis of the Petitioner's request dated March 13th 2025, is a violation of Article 10, be availed at the Government Printers;
6. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 5th respondents to compel the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to publicize the information in accordance with Article 35(3) on the basis of the Petitioner's request, they are in dereliction of their constitutional and statutory mandate;
7. That the costs for this Petition be provided for; and
8. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further Order or Orders as may be just and appropriate.
8. The petitioner attached to the petition the correspondence between him and the respondents.
The Responses by the Respondents
9. The petition is opposed by the respondents. The 4th respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 18th February 2020 through its litigation counsel, Ms Deborah Were, in which it averred that there was no cause of action against it. It further averred that the right to access information under Article 35 was not absolute and was subject to statutory guidelines, procedures and limitations. It deprecated the petition on the ground that it was vague and unsupported by evidence substantiating the allegation of differential treatment contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution, and that holding the event in any place, even a 5-star hotel, did not in itself amount to discrimination contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. Further, the said party contended that the petitioner had not identified any prohibited grounds of discrimination, nor demonstrated unequal treatment vis-à-vis a comparable class of persons.
10. The 4th respondent contended that it would be improper for the court to interfere with the internal parliamentary process in the absence of demonstrated constitutional violations. Further, holding a national prayer breakfast or a similar event per se did not amount to a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. It was also stated that it had not been shown that there was illegality, misappropriation of funds or unconstitutional expenditure, merely a question of venue, which, in view of the 4th respondent, was not a justiciable constitutional issue. Lastly, the 4th respondent contended that the petition did not meet the threshold for precision in pleadings in a constitutional litigation.
11. The 5th respondent, through its litigation counsel, Ms Isolina Kinyua, opposed the petition by filing a replying affidavit sworn by Mr Daniel Mwangi Karomo on 4th March 2026. Mr Karomo is the acting Commission Secretary. In the said affidavit, the deponent averred that the Commission on Administrative Justice was a constitutional commission under Article 59(4) of the Constitution of Kenya and under Section 3 of the Commission of Administrative Justice Act, with the mandate, inter alia, to investigate any conduct of state affairs or any act or omission in public administration by any state organ or public officer in national and county government that may result in impropriety or prejudice.
12. The deponent argued that it was conferred by the Access to Information Act with oversight and enforcement functions, and with powers to give effect to Article 35 of the Constitution, which provides for the right to access information held by the state or by any other person.
13. Regarding the request of the petitioner, he deposed that it received the request of the petitioner dated 27th June 2025. Upon review, it initiated an enquiry by letter dated 3rd July 2025 addressed to the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate, requesting that they provide the information sought. The said request was made pursuant to section 22(3) of the Access to Information Act and Regulation 25(1) of the Access to Information (General) Regulation, 2023. The clerk of the National Assembly responded to the request via a letter dated 14th July 2025, indicating that it was under consideration by the Parliamentary Service Commission. On its part, the Clerk of the Senate responded to the request vide a letter dated 17th June 2025, indicating that the substantive response was being prepared and would be availed in due course.
14. Subsequently, the Clerk of the Senate wrote on 1st October 2025 to the petitioner, indicating that the National Prayer Breakfast was an annual event in the parliamentary calendar and that it was funded by the Parliamentary Service Commission through funds that formed part of the annual estimates of expenditure table before parliament.
15. In a rejoinder to the response of the Clerk of the Senate, the petitioner averred that the information provided did not address the specific information requested. The petitioner's response was provided to the clerk of the Senate, who had not responded. The clerk of the National Assembly had not provided a substantive response to the issues raised by the petitioner.
16. The 5th respondent denied that it had failed to act within its mandate. It urged that it, in fact, acted within its statutory mandate. It was urged that the petition was therefore misconceived and unjustified as it had undertaken all necessary steps within its mandate to facilitate access to the requested information.
17. The 1st respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by the Clerk of the Senate and the Secretary of the Parliamentary Service Commission, sworn on 12th March 2026, in which he deposed that the National Prayer Breakfast was an event organized by the Parliamentary Service Commission in fulfillment of its mandate under Article 127 (d) of the Constitution as read together with Section 24 of the Parliamentary Service Act, 2019. The event has been held annually since 2003 and emulates a similar event in the United States of America, held on the 1st Thursday of February each year since 1953.
18. It was deposed that the event was interdenominational and that it provided a platform for leaders to meet and to promote dialogue, understanding and cooperation. Regarding the petition it was stated that the 1st respondent responded to the petitioner on 1st October 2025 informing him that the budget of the National Prayer Breakfast was included in the Annual Estimates of Expenditure of the Parliamentary Service Commission tabled in parliament in accordance with Article 221 of the Constitution, was duly approved as part of the budget of the Republic of Kenya and was subject to audit by the Office of the Auditor General. The deponent contended that its response to the petitioner met and complied with its obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Access to Information Act, 2016. He further contended that under section 6 (5) of the Access to Information Act, it was not under an obligation to provide information which was already in the public domain and could reasonably be accessed by other means. The information sought was in the annual estimates, which are public documents available on the websites of the Parliament of Kenya and the National Treasury, and the petitioner could not access them.
19. The deponent argued that the National Prayer Breakfast was a program implemented by the 1st respondent in the discharge of its functions under Article 127 of the Constitution. It was denied that the use of funds in that manner violated Article 201(d) of the Constitution, as the activity was undertaken in implementation of a program lawfully budgeted for by the 1st respondent and approved by the National Assembly as part of the budget of the National Government of the Republic of Kenya.
20. He contended that the provisions of Articles 201 and 227 of the Constitution were met and that the venue of the event was identified in accordance with the relevant procurement processes, in particular the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015. The deponent denied that Article 27 of the Constitution was breached. He contended that Kenyans from all walks of life were invited and had always been invited, and that the event was broadcast on national television, allowing Kenyans of all walks of life to participate.
21. The deponent also opposed the prayers for conservatory reliefs. He stated that the conditions that a petitioner had to meet for conservatory orders to issue, as settled in the case of Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014]eKLR, were not met and that the court lacked jurisdiction to restrain the respondents from organizing the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast. It was thus urged that the Petition and the Notice of Motion should be dismissed with costs.
22. The National Assembly, through its counsel Sophie Otieno, filed grounds of opposition dated 12th March 2026. In that document, it was urged that the National Prayer Breakfast was first held in May 2003 and had since become an annual event, uniting the President, Deputy President, Chief Justice, Members of the National Assembly, Senators, Religious leaders, Diplomats, and global figures to foster unity, reconciliation, and ethical leadership. It was contended that it was an inclusive event that meaningfully expressed constitutional principles, in particular Articles 10 and 32 of the Constitution, on national values and freedom of religion, respectively. Counsel stated that it warranted judicial deference.
23. It was contended that the event was organized by the Parliamentary Service Commission pursuant to Article 127 (6) of the Constitution. The deponent averred that the 2nd respondent was right to refer the matter to the Public Service Commission in line with Section 10 (1) of the Access to Information Act. It was denied that the 1st Respondent's response was evasive. The 2nd respondent urged that the referral to the Auditor General was a proper and lawful indication to the place where verified, audited records could be accessed.
24. The 2nd respondent urged that the petition raised issues which were non-justiciable and that grievances regarding venue, expenditure and policy fell within the exclusive mandates of the legislative and executive arms of government. It was urged that the venue was identified on the basis of overriding state security needs and logistical imperatives. It was denied that any person or group had been excluded or that the event was discriminatory in intent or effect.
25. The 2nd respondent therefore prayed that the petition dated 9th February 2026 be dismissed with costs.
26. On its part, the Senate opposed the petition by filing a reply affidavit, sworn by Ms Eunice Gichangi, on 24th April 2026. Ms Gichangi is the Deputy Clerk of the Senate. She deposed that the petition was anchored on the alleged failure to provide certain information to the petitioner. In her view, the information sought by the petitioner was adequately addressed in the letter of the Parliamentary Service Commission dated 1st October 2025, and that, by dint of that action, Article 35 of the Constitution was adequately complied with.
27. It was contended that the National Prayer Breakfast complied with Article 10 of the Constitution as it was inclusive and promoted good governance and public participation. She urged that the event did not contravene Article 8 of the Constitution, as it did not establish, endorse, or impose any religion, and that participation in it was both voluntary and inclusive.
28. Ms Gichangi denied that the event was discriminatory or that public funds were improperly used. She contended that such events had been used all over the world to promote reconciliation between hostile parties and that the Kenyan model was institutionally anchored in the legislature, with the intent to maintain bipartisan and inter-institutional neutrality and to bring together the legislative, judicial, and diplomatic representatives, faith leaders, and civil society. She deposed that the forum had been used in the past to promote reconciliation as exemplified by the 2018 event in which the then President, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, and the then leader of the opposition, Raila Amollo Odinga, agreed to reconcile and expressed mutual forgiveness, which neutralized months of national hostility.
29. Ms Gichangi stated that the petition was an affront to the role of the legislative arm of government under Articles 1 (1), 92, 94, 95 and 96 of the Constitution. She therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed and that “conservatory orders vacated to allow the senate to continue its lawful oversight duties.”
30. Although the petition sought conservatory orders, these were not granted. On 13th March 2026, the petitioner applied to have the application dated 9th February 2026 subsumed into the petition so that both could be heard together. The said prayer was allowed.
Submission of the Parties
31. The petition was canvassed by way of both oral and written submissions. I shall provide a precis of each of the parties' submissions below.
Submission of the Petitioner
32. The written submissions of the petitioner are dated 9th April 2026. Mr Lempaa Suyianka made oral submissions on 7th May 2026, as did the respondents’ respective counsels.
33. The petitioner identified the issues, which, in his view, were to be determined by the Court, as being:
1. Whether the refusal, delay, or failure by the Respondents to provide the requested information violates the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution;
2. Whether the Respondents' failure to provide reasons for non-disclosure constitutes a violation of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution;
3. Whether the conduct of the Respondents is inconsistent with the national values and principles of governance under Article 10, particularly transparency, accountability, and good governance;
4. Whether the organization and funding of the National Prayer Breakfast by Parliament has a lawful constitutional or statutory basis, and whether it complies with the principles governing public finance under Article 201 of the Constitution;
5. Whether the involvement of State organs in the organization and funding of the National Prayer Breakfast violates the principle of secularism under Article 8 and the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution;
6. Whether the Commission on Administrative Justice failed in its constitutional and statutory mandate to enforce the right of access to information;
7. What reliefs should this Honourable Court grant in the circumstances?
34. Mr Lempaa Suyianka submitted that the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, was a transformative compact that must be interpreted holistically and purposively, in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles, advances the rule of law and contributes to good governance.
35. Counsel urged that the significance of the right to access information under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya extended beyond its textual formulation as it was inextricably linked to other rights, including freedom of expression under Article 33, political rights under Article 38 and general principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution. Support for the said submissions was obtained from the decision of the court in the following cases: Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 3 Others v Judicial Service Commission & Another [2016] eKLR, Katiba Institute v President Delivery Unit & Others [2017]eKLR and Nairobi Law Monthly Co. Ltd v KETRACO & 2 Others [2013]eKLR.
36. Counsel submitted that a member of the public could request information from a public body or person without having to show any particular interest or reason for their request, and that where a public body proposed to limit disclosure, the exception to disclosure must be clear and narrow, subject to harm and public interest tests, and to the rights and interests of others.
37. The petitioner submitted that Article 10 of the Constitution required that actions of state organs be guided by the national values and principles of governance, including transparency, accountability and good governance, integrity and participation of the people.
38. Mr Lempaa submitted that the National Assembly and the Senate could not organize a National Prayer Breakfast, as their roles under Articles 94, 95 and 96 were legislative, oversight and representative, and that these roles did not include organizing national events, particularly those involving the expenditure of public funds. He contended that parliament, as a creature of the Constitution, could not act outside its mandate.
39. It was contended that the National Prayer Breakfast lacked a legislative and budgetary framework, and that it was unclear whether oversight and accountability mechanisms existed. He contended that the use of public funds must be subjected to strict scrutiny, and that any expenditure that was not transparent was inconsistent with the Constitution. He deprecated the holding of the impugned event in a 5-star hotel.
40. Mr Lempaa submitted that care must be taken to avoid transplanting foreign models in Kenya. He urged that Kenyan’s constitutional framework does not permit the allocation of scarce public resources without first ensuring that fundamental social and economic needs are met. He relied on the case of Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury & 3 Others [2018]eKLR and the Institute of Social Accountability & Another v National Assembly & 4 Others.
41. Counsel submitted that Article 8 of the Constitution of Kenya precluded the existence of a state religion and that Kenya was a secular state. It was urged that the National Prayer Breakfast, in its current form, failed the tests of constitutional prudence, proportionality and secular neutrality, and was an unjustifiable use of public resources.
Submissions of the Respondents
42. The counsel for the 1st respondent opposed the petition. In its submissions dated 4th May 2025, he identified the issues coming up for determination as being:
1. Whether the 1st Respondent discharged its obligation under Article 35 of the Constitution as read together with provisions of the Access to Information Act, 2016.
2. Whether the 1st Respondent violated the principles of public finance under Article 201 of the Constitution;
3. Whether the Respondents violated the Petitioner's or any other person's rights under Article 27 of the Constitution on non-discrimination;
4. Whether the Respondents, by organizing the National Prayer Breakfast, violated the freedom of Religion under Article 32 of the Constitution;
5. Whether the Court can restrain the Respondents from organizing the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast.
43. Regarding the 1st issue, it was urged that the 1st respondent discharged its obligations. It was contended that the right of access to information did not impose an obligation on the part of the state organ to extract and tabulate data already in the public domain.
44. Counsel submitted that the National Prayer Breakfast was funded by the Parliamentary Service Commission and that the funds were budgeted for in the budget estimates of the Parliamentary Service Commission. It was submitted that the budgetary process followed the constitutional guidelines and that, as the expenditure had successfully undergone a constitutional process, it could not be termed imprudent.
45. It was denied that organization of the National Prayer Breakfast violated the freedom of religion under Article 32 or that it was discriminatory.
46. On whether the court could restrain the respondents, it was urged that conservatory orders should be sparingly issued. It was urged that the petitioner had not demonstrated that any of his rights had been violated or were in danger of violation.
47. It was contended that the petition was frivolous and the counsel for the 1st respondent therefore prayed that the same be dismissed with costs.
48. The 2nd respondent’s submissions are dated 6th May 2026. In those submissions, it was urged that no constitutional violation occurred, that the petitioner’s access to information was fully respected, and that the petition was premature, misconceived and an abuse of the court process.
49. The 2nd Respondent contended that the petitioner’s right to information under Article 35 was not denied as he was directed to obtain the relevant information from the Parliamentary Service Commission. It was urged that, in any event, the information sought was already in the public domain and that under Section 6 (5) of the Access to Information Act, the 2nd Respondent was under no obligation to supply information that was reasonably accessible by other means.
50. Counsel urged that the allocation of funds for the National Prayer Breakfast was made pursuant to a lawful budgetary process that was inclusive. Further, it was submitted that public funding for the National Prayer Breakfast is entirely consistent with the Constitution, in particular Articles 10, 27 and 32.
51. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that organization of the National Prayer Breakfast was an internal parliamentary function that did not breach the doctrine of separation of powers. She stated that the word “national” in the “National Prayer Breakfast” merely reflected its broad representation of the Kenyan public from across the country and that it was not an exclusive function.
52. The 2nd Respondent therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.
53. The 3rd Respondent’s submissions are similar to those of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It identified issues for determination as being:
1. Whether the Petition meets the threshold of precision required for constitutional litigation, particularly as against the 3rd Respondent;
2. Whether the Petition offends the doctrine of Separation of Powers;
3. Whether this Honourable Court can grant the prayers sought by the Petitioner.
54. It was contended that the petition did not meet the threshold for a constitutional petition as it was not drafted with a reasonable degree of precision, did not set out the constitutional violations and the manner of alleged infringement. Counsel contended that the petitioner’s allegations were derivative and vague.
55. It was submitted that the petition offends the doctrine of separation of powers. Counsel urged that, since the National Prayer Breakfast was held in compliance with the Constitution and relevant law, the Court, in exercise of its constitutional judicial review jurisdiction, could not superintend the manner in which Parliament promoted the ideals of parliamentary democracy, as provided for in Article 127 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and that such a role fell within the province of parliament alone, not any other organ.
56. Counsel submitted that this court could not issue conservatory orders in respect of the subject matter of the Petition. She therefore urged that the petition be dismissed with costs.
57. The Attorney General did not file submissions. Its counsel, however, associated herself with the submissions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.
58. On its part, the 5th respondent contended that it was not a necessary party. Its counsel submitted that the 5th respondent acted promptly and that it would have issued a ruling hadn’t the petitioner filed the petition now before the Court.
59. I have considered the Petition, the Notice of Motion dated 9th February 2026, the affidavit filed in support thereof, as well as the responses filed by the parties, together with the documents filed herewith. In the main, the questions the court must address are whether the actions of the respondents are violative of the Constitution and, if so, what remedies ought to be issued.
60. The foregoing notwithstanding, it is necessary to atomize the issues further and deal with them sequentially. The issues, which are broadly similar to those identified by the petitioner, are the following:
1. Whether the delay, refusal, or failure of the respondents to provide the information sought violated the petitioner’s right to access to information;
2. Whether the respondents’ failure to provide a reason for non-disclosure of the information sought violated the petitioner’s right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution;
3. Whether the conduct of the respondents was inconsistent with the national values and principles of governance under Article 10, particularly, transparency, accountability and good governance;
4. Whether the funding of the National Prayer Breakfast by parliament is unlawful for want of a constitutional and statutory basis;
5. Whether the involvement of state organs in the organization and funding of the National Prayer Breakfast violates the principles of secularism under Article 8, and the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution;
6. Whether the Commission on Administrative Justice failed in its constitutional and statutory mandate to ensure the right to access to information;
7. What reliefs should the court grant in the circumstances?
61. I will consider the issues, either individually, or in a consolidated form, in the order they appear, below.
Did the Respondent delay or refuse to provide the information sought, and was the delay or refusal a violation of Article 35 of the Constitution?
62. I have perused the documents supplied by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner wrote to the clerks of the two houses on 13th March 2025. There was no response to that letter. The petitioner wrote again on 9th June 2025. Subsequently, the Commission on Administrative Justice wrote to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 3rd July 2025,
[...truncated]
1. According to its website, the Kenya National Prayer Breakfast is “an annual nonpartisan event that brings together leaders from all sectors of society to pray for the nation, seek reconciliation and foster unity across political, religious and ethnic lines.” It is intended to “cultivate a culture of ethical leadership and national unity grounded in prayer and shared values.”
2. The event was first held in 2003 and has taken place annually since then. It is part of an international movement spanning 180 countries. The movement began in 1953 in the United States of America and has since spread worldwide. Its core values are unity, prayer, purpose, and reconciliation.
3. The above-stated website states that the 2026 edition shall be held on Thursday, the 28th day of May 2026, between 7 and 11 am at the Safari Park Hotel in Thika Road, Nairobi. The event will bring together 2000 leaders, including the President of the Republic of Kenya, and is coordinated by the speakers of the Senate and the National Assembly, and shall be attended by leaders from across political, religious and ethnic lines, with the aim of praying together for the Republic of Kenya and to foster ethical leadership.
The Petition dated 9th February 2026.
4. The petitioner, Lempaa Suyianka, filed the petition dated 9th February 2026, in which he contended that he made a freedom of information request on 13th March 2025, seeking information on the 2025 edition of the National Prayer Breakfast. The information wasn’t provided, and on 9th June 2025, he wrote to the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate expressing his disappointment over the denial of the said information. Subsequently, the Commission on Administrative Justice wrote to the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate, urging them to provide the requisite information. The petitioner subsequently received communication from the Parliamentary Service Commission to the effect that the National Prayer Breakfast was included in the Commission's annual estimates of expenditure, which were tabled in Parliament in accordance with Article 221 of the Constitution.
5. The petitioner was aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to supply the information sought, to being referred to the Auditor General, and was apprehensive that no information would be provided to him unless the court intervened.
6. The petitioner avers that the failure to provide the information fought violates Article 10 (on values and principle), Article 35 (on freedom of information), the doctrine of separation of powers, Article 201 (d) (on prudent use of public money, Article 27 on non-discrimination and Articles 94, 95 and 96 (on the roles of Parliament and its various houses) of the Constitution of Kenya as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, in his view, purport to pray for Kenyans
“without their involvement”.
7. The petitioner therefore sought that the following orders, which I shall reproduce verbatim:
1. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 1st respondent to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to respond to the ATI letter on the National Prayer Breakfast is a violation of the right to access to information;
2. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 1st respondent to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to publicize the information in accordance with Article 35(3) on the basis of the Petitioner's request dated March 13th, 2025 is a violation of Article 10 of the Constitution, and specifically the values of the rule of law, participation of the people, human rights, good governance, transparency and accountability;
3. That a declaration be issued that the use of public money in a five-star hotel by Members of Parliament is violative of Article 201 of the Constitution;
4. That an Order be issued compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents to forthwith provide, at the Respondents' cost, information sought by the Petitioner in their letter to the Respondent dated March 13th, 2025;
5. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 1st respondent to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to publicize the information in accordance with Article 35(3) on the basis of the Petitioner's request dated March 13th 2025, is a violation of Article 10, be availed at the Government Printers;
6. That a declaration be issued that the failure by the 5th respondents to compel the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to provide information sought under Article 35(1)(a) and also to publicize the information in accordance with Article 35(3) on the basis of the Petitioner's request, they are in dereliction of their constitutional and statutory mandate;
7. That the costs for this Petition be provided for; and
8. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further Order or Orders as may be just and appropriate.
8. The petitioner attached to the petition the correspondence between him and the respondents.
The Responses by the Respondents
9. The petition is opposed by the respondents. The 4th respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 18th February 2020 through its litigation counsel, Ms Deborah Were, in which it averred that there was no cause of action against it. It further averred that the right to access information under Article 35 was not absolute and was subject to statutory guidelines, procedures and limitations. It deprecated the petition on the ground that it was vague and unsupported by evidence substantiating the allegation of differential treatment contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution, and that holding the event in any place, even a 5-star hotel, did not in itself amount to discrimination contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. Further, the said party contended that the petitioner had not identified any prohibited grounds of discrimination, nor demonstrated unequal treatment vis-à-vis a comparable class of persons.
10. The 4th respondent contended that it would be improper for the court to interfere with the internal parliamentary process in the absence of demonstrated constitutional violations. Further, holding a national prayer breakfast or a similar event per se did not amount to a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. It was also stated that it had not been shown that there was illegality, misappropriation of funds or unconstitutional expenditure, merely a question of venue, which, in view of the 4th respondent, was not a justiciable constitutional issue. Lastly, the 4th respondent contended that the petition did not meet the threshold for precision in pleadings in a constitutional litigation.
11. The 5th respondent, through its litigation counsel, Ms Isolina Kinyua, opposed the petition by filing a replying affidavit sworn by Mr Daniel Mwangi Karomo on 4th March 2026. Mr Karomo is the acting Commission Secretary. In the said affidavit, the deponent averred that the Commission on Administrative Justice was a constitutional commission under Article 59(4) of the Constitution of Kenya and under Section 3 of the Commission of Administrative Justice Act, with the mandate, inter alia, to investigate any conduct of state affairs or any act or omission in public administration by any state organ or public officer in national and county government that may result in impropriety or prejudice.
12. The deponent argued that it was conferred by the Access to Information Act with oversight and enforcement functions, and with powers to give effect to Article 35 of the Constitution, which provides for the right to access information held by the state or by any other person.
13. Regarding the request of the petitioner, he deposed that it received the request of the petitioner dated 27th June 2025. Upon review, it initiated an enquiry by letter dated 3rd July 2025 addressed to the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate, requesting that they provide the information sought. The said request was made pursuant to section 22(3) of the Access to Information Act and Regulation 25(1) of the Access to Information (General) Regulation, 2023. The clerk of the National Assembly responded to the request via a letter dated 14th July 2025, indicating that it was under consideration by the Parliamentary Service Commission. On its part, the Clerk of the Senate responded to the request vide a letter dated 17th June 2025, indicating that the substantive response was being prepared and would be availed in due course.
14. Subsequently, the Clerk of the Senate wrote on 1st October 2025 to the petitioner, indicating that the National Prayer Breakfast was an annual event in the parliamentary calendar and that it was funded by the Parliamentary Service Commission through funds that formed part of the annual estimates of expenditure table before parliament.
15. In a rejoinder to the response of the Clerk of the Senate, the petitioner averred that the information provided did not address the specific information requested. The petitioner's response was provided to the clerk of the Senate, who had not responded. The clerk of the National Assembly had not provided a substantive response to the issues raised by the petitioner.
16. The 5th respondent denied that it had failed to act within its mandate. It urged that it, in fact, acted within its statutory mandate. It was urged that the petition was therefore misconceived and unjustified as it had undertaken all necessary steps within its mandate to facilitate access to the requested information.
17. The 1st respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by the Clerk of the Senate and the Secretary of the Parliamentary Service Commission, sworn on 12th March 2026, in which he deposed that the National Prayer Breakfast was an event organized by the Parliamentary Service Commission in fulfillment of its mandate under Article 127 (d) of the Constitution as read together with Section 24 of the Parliamentary Service Act, 2019. The event has been held annually since 2003 and emulates a similar event in the United States of America, held on the 1st Thursday of February each year since 1953.
18. It was deposed that the event was interdenominational and that it provided a platform for leaders to meet and to promote dialogue, understanding and cooperation. Regarding the petition it was stated that the 1st respondent responded to the petitioner on 1st October 2025 informing him that the budget of the National Prayer Breakfast was included in the Annual Estimates of Expenditure of the Parliamentary Service Commission tabled in parliament in accordance with Article 221 of the Constitution, was duly approved as part of the budget of the Republic of Kenya and was subject to audit by the Office of the Auditor General. The deponent contended that its response to the petitioner met and complied with its obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Access to Information Act, 2016. He further contended that under section 6 (5) of the Access to Information Act, it was not under an obligation to provide information which was already in the public domain and could reasonably be accessed by other means. The information sought was in the annual estimates, which are public documents available on the websites of the Parliament of Kenya and the National Treasury, and the petitioner could not access them.
19. The deponent argued that the National Prayer Breakfast was a program implemented by the 1st respondent in the discharge of its functions under Article 127 of the Constitution. It was denied that the use of funds in that manner violated Article 201(d) of the Constitution, as the activity was undertaken in implementation of a program lawfully budgeted for by the 1st respondent and approved by the National Assembly as part of the budget of the National Government of the Republic of Kenya.
20. He contended that the provisions of Articles 201 and 227 of the Constitution were met and that the venue of the event was identified in accordance with the relevant procurement processes, in particular the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015. The deponent denied that Article 27 of the Constitution was breached. He contended that Kenyans from all walks of life were invited and had always been invited, and that the event was broadcast on national television, allowing Kenyans of all walks of life to participate.
21. The deponent also opposed the prayers for conservatory reliefs. He stated that the conditions that a petitioner had to meet for conservatory orders to issue, as settled in the case of Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014]eKLR, were not met and that the court lacked jurisdiction to restrain the respondents from organizing the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast. It was thus urged that the Petition and the Notice of Motion should be dismissed with costs.
22. The National Assembly, through its counsel Sophie Otieno, filed grounds of opposition dated 12th March 2026. In that document, it was urged that the National Prayer Breakfast was first held in May 2003 and had since become an annual event, uniting the President, Deputy President, Chief Justice, Members of the National Assembly, Senators, Religious leaders, Diplomats, and global figures to foster unity, reconciliation, and ethical leadership. It was contended that it was an inclusive event that meaningfully expressed constitutional principles, in particular Articles 10 and 32 of the Constitution, on national values and freedom of religion, respectively. Counsel stated that it warranted judicial deference.
23. It was contended that the event was organized by the Parliamentary Service Commission pursuant to Article 127 (6) of the Constitution. The deponent averred that the 2nd respondent was right to refer the matter to the Public Service Commission in line with Section 10 (1) of the Access to Information Act. It was denied that the 1st Respondent's response was evasive. The 2nd respondent urged that the referral to the Auditor General was a proper and lawful indication to the place where verified, audited records could be accessed.
24. The 2nd respondent urged that the petition raised issues which were non-justiciable and that grievances regarding venue, expenditure and policy fell within the exclusive mandates of the legislative and executive arms of government. It was urged that the venue was identified on the basis of overriding state security needs and logistical imperatives. It was denied that any person or group had been excluded or that the event was discriminatory in intent or effect.
25. The 2nd respondent therefore prayed that the petition dated 9th February 2026 be dismissed with costs.
26. On its part, the Senate opposed the petition by filing a reply affidavit, sworn by Ms Eunice Gichangi, on 24th April 2026. Ms Gichangi is the Deputy Clerk of the Senate. She deposed that the petition was anchored on the alleged failure to provide certain information to the petitioner. In her view, the information sought by the petitioner was adequately addressed in the letter of the Parliamentary Service Commission dated 1st October 2025, and that, by dint of that action, Article 35 of the Constitution was adequately complied with.
27. It was contended that the National Prayer Breakfast complied with Article 10 of the Constitution as it was inclusive and promoted good governance and public participation. She urged that the event did not contravene Article 8 of the Constitution, as it did not establish, endorse, or impose any religion, and that participation in it was both voluntary and inclusive.
28. Ms Gichangi denied that the event was discriminatory or that public funds were improperly used. She contended that such events had been used all over the world to promote reconciliation between hostile parties and that the Kenyan model was institutionally anchored in the legislature, with the intent to maintain bipartisan and inter-institutional neutrality and to bring together the legislative, judicial, and diplomatic representatives, faith leaders, and civil society. She deposed that the forum had been used in the past to promote reconciliation as exemplified by the 2018 event in which the then President, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, and the then leader of the opposition, Raila Amollo Odinga, agreed to reconcile and expressed mutual forgiveness, which neutralized months of national hostility.
29. Ms Gichangi stated that the petition was an affront to the role of the legislative arm of government under Articles 1 (1), 92, 94, 95 and 96 of the Constitution. She therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed and that “conservatory orders vacated to allow the senate to continue its lawful oversight duties.”
30. Although the petition sought conservatory orders, these were not granted. On 13th March 2026, the petitioner applied to have the application dated 9th February 2026 subsumed into the petition so that both could be heard together. The said prayer was allowed.
Submission of the Parties
31. The petition was canvassed by way of both oral and written submissions. I shall provide a precis of each of the parties' submissions below.
Submission of the Petitioner
32. The written submissions of the petitioner are dated 9th April 2026. Mr Lempaa Suyianka made oral submissions on 7th May 2026, as did the respondents’ respective counsels.
33. The petitioner identified the issues, which, in his view, were to be determined by the Court, as being:
1. Whether the refusal, delay, or failure by the Respondents to provide the requested information violates the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution;
2. Whether the Respondents' failure to provide reasons for non-disclosure constitutes a violation of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution;
3. Whether the conduct of the Respondents is inconsistent with the national values and principles of governance under Article 10, particularly transparency, accountability, and good governance;
4. Whether the organization and funding of the National Prayer Breakfast by Parliament has a lawful constitutional or statutory basis, and whether it complies with the principles governing public finance under Article 201 of the Constitution;
5. Whether the involvement of State organs in the organization and funding of the National Prayer Breakfast violates the principle of secularism under Article 8 and the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution;
6. Whether the Commission on Administrative Justice failed in its constitutional and statutory mandate to enforce the right of access to information;
7. What reliefs should this Honourable Court grant in the circumstances?
34. Mr Lempaa Suyianka submitted that the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, was a transformative compact that must be interpreted holistically and purposively, in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles, advances the rule of law and contributes to good governance.
35. Counsel urged that the significance of the right to access information under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya extended beyond its textual formulation as it was inextricably linked to other rights, including freedom of expression under Article 33, political rights under Article 38 and general principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution. Support for the said submissions was obtained from the decision of the court in the following cases: Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 3 Others v Judicial Service Commission & Another [2016] eKLR, Katiba Institute v President Delivery Unit & Others [2017]eKLR and Nairobi Law Monthly Co. Ltd v KETRACO & 2 Others [2013]eKLR.
36. Counsel submitted that a member of the public could request information from a public body or person without having to show any particular interest or reason for their request, and that where a public body proposed to limit disclosure, the exception to disclosure must be clear and narrow, subject to harm and public interest tests, and to the rights and interests of others.
37. The petitioner submitted that Article 10 of the Constitution required that actions of state organs be guided by the national values and principles of governance, including transparency, accountability and good governance, integrity and participation of the people.
38. Mr Lempaa submitted that the National Assembly and the Senate could not organize a National Prayer Breakfast, as their roles under Articles 94, 95 and 96 were legislative, oversight and representative, and that these roles did not include organizing national events, particularly those involving the expenditure of public funds. He contended that parliament, as a creature of the Constitution, could not act outside its mandate.
39. It was contended that the National Prayer Breakfast lacked a legislative and budgetary framework, and that it was unclear whether oversight and accountability mechanisms existed. He contended that the use of public funds must be subjected to strict scrutiny, and that any expenditure that was not transparent was inconsistent with the Constitution. He deprecated the holding of the impugned event in a 5-star hotel.
40. Mr Lempaa submitted that care must be taken to avoid transplanting foreign models in Kenya. He urged that Kenyan’s constitutional framework does not permit the allocation of scarce public resources without first ensuring that fundamental social and economic needs are met. He relied on the case of Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury & 3 Others [2018]eKLR and the Institute of Social Accountability & Another v National Assembly & 4 Others.
41. Counsel submitted that Article 8 of the Constitution of Kenya precluded the existence of a state religion and that Kenya was a secular state. It was urged that the National Prayer Breakfast, in its current form, failed the tests of constitutional prudence, proportionality and secular neutrality, and was an unjustifiable use of public resources.
Submissions of the Respondents
42. The counsel for the 1st respondent opposed the petition. In its submissions dated 4th May 2025, he identified the issues coming up for determination as being:
1. Whether the 1st Respondent discharged its obligation under Article 35 of the Constitution as read together with provisions of the Access to Information Act, 2016.
2. Whether the 1st Respondent violated the principles of public finance under Article 201 of the Constitution;
3. Whether the Respondents violated the Petitioner's or any other person's rights under Article 27 of the Constitution on non-discrimination;
4. Whether the Respondents, by organizing the National Prayer Breakfast, violated the freedom of Religion under Article 32 of the Constitution;
5. Whether the Court can restrain the Respondents from organizing the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast.
43. Regarding the 1st issue, it was urged that the 1st respondent discharged its obligations. It was contended that the right of access to information did not impose an obligation on the part of the state organ to extract and tabulate data already in the public domain.
44. Counsel submitted that the National Prayer Breakfast was funded by the Parliamentary Service Commission and that the funds were budgeted for in the budget estimates of the Parliamentary Service Commission. It was submitted that the budgetary process followed the constitutional guidelines and that, as the expenditure had successfully undergone a constitutional process, it could not be termed imprudent.
45. It was denied that organization of the National Prayer Breakfast violated the freedom of religion under Article 32 or that it was discriminatory.
46. On whether the court could restrain the respondents, it was urged that conservatory orders should be sparingly issued. It was urged that the petitioner had not demonstrated that any of his rights had been violated or were in danger of violation.
47. It was contended that the petition was frivolous and the counsel for the 1st respondent therefore prayed that the same be dismissed with costs.
48. The 2nd respondent’s submissions are dated 6th May 2026. In those submissions, it was urged that no constitutional violation occurred, that the petitioner’s access to information was fully respected, and that the petition was premature, misconceived and an abuse of the court process.
49. The 2nd Respondent contended that the petitioner’s right to information under Article 35 was not denied as he was directed to obtain the relevant information from the Parliamentary Service Commission. It was urged that, in any event, the information sought was already in the public domain and that under Section 6 (5) of the Access to Information Act, the 2nd Respondent was under no obligation to supply information that was reasonably accessible by other means.
50. Counsel urged that the allocation of funds for the National Prayer Breakfast was made pursuant to a lawful budgetary process that was inclusive. Further, it was submitted that public funding for the National Prayer Breakfast is entirely consistent with the Constitution, in particular Articles 10, 27 and 32.
51. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that organization of the National Prayer Breakfast was an internal parliamentary function that did not breach the doctrine of separation of powers. She stated that the word “national” in the “National Prayer Breakfast” merely reflected its broad representation of the Kenyan public from across the country and that it was not an exclusive function.
52. The 2nd Respondent therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.
53. The 3rd Respondent’s submissions are similar to those of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It identified issues for determination as being:
1. Whether the Petition meets the threshold of precision required for constitutional litigation, particularly as against the 3rd Respondent;
2. Whether the Petition offends the doctrine of Separation of Powers;
3. Whether this Honourable Court can grant the prayers sought by the Petitioner.
54. It was contended that the petition did not meet the threshold for a constitutional petition as it was not drafted with a reasonable degree of precision, did not set out the constitutional violations and the manner of alleged infringement. Counsel contended that the petitioner’s allegations were derivative and vague.
55. It was submitted that the petition offends the doctrine of separation of powers. Counsel urged that, since the National Prayer Breakfast was held in compliance with the Constitution and relevant law, the Court, in exercise of its constitutional judicial review jurisdiction, could not superintend the manner in which Parliament promoted the ideals of parliamentary democracy, as provided for in Article 127 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and that such a role fell within the province of parliament alone, not any other organ.
56. Counsel submitted that this court could not issue conservatory orders in respect of the subject matter of the Petition. She therefore urged that the petition be dismissed with costs.
57. The Attorney General did not file submissions. Its counsel, however, associated herself with the submissions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.
58. On its part, the 5th respondent contended that it was not a necessary party. Its counsel submitted that the 5th respondent acted promptly and that it would have issued a ruling hadn’t the petitioner filed the petition now before the Court.
59. I have considered the Petition, the Notice of Motion dated 9th February 2026, the affidavit filed in support thereof, as well as the responses filed by the parties, together with the documents filed herewith. In the main, the questions the court must address are whether the actions of the respondents are violative of the Constitution and, if so, what remedies ought to be issued.
60. The foregoing notwithstanding, it is necessary to atomize the issues further and deal with them sequentially. The issues, which are broadly similar to those identified by the petitioner, are the following:
1. Whether the delay, refusal, or failure of the respondents to provide the information sought violated the petitioner’s right to access to information;
2. Whether the respondents’ failure to provide a reason for non-disclosure of the information sought violated the petitioner’s right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution;
3. Whether the conduct of the respondents was inconsistent with the national values and principles of governance under Article 10, particularly, transparency, accountability and good governance;
4. Whether the funding of the National Prayer Breakfast by parliament is unlawful for want of a constitutional and statutory basis;
5. Whether the involvement of state organs in the organization and funding of the National Prayer Breakfast violates the principles of secularism under Article 8, and the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution;
6. Whether the Commission on Administrative Justice failed in its constitutional and statutory mandate to ensure the right to access to information;
7. What reliefs should the court grant in the circumstances?
61. I will consider the issues, either individually, or in a consolidated form, in the order they appear, below.
Did the Respondent delay or refuse to provide the information sought, and was the delay or refusal a violation of Article 35 of the Constitution?
62. I have perused the documents supplied by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner wrote to the clerks of the two houses on 13th March 2025. There was no response to that letter. The petitioner wrote again on 9th June 2025. Subsequently, the Commission on Administrative Justice wrote to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 3rd July 2025,
[...truncated]