Court dismisses petition to declare National Prayer Breakfast held at Safari Park unconstitutional

The court further held that the petitioner failed to properly plead and prove that the event violated Article 8 of the Constitution on the separation of religion and the State.

The judge noted that although parties extensively submitted on whether the National Prayer Breakfast amounts to establishment of a State religion, the issue had not been specifically pleaded in the petition.

“Submissions are not pleadings,” the court said, adding that it could only determine issues that had been formally placed before it.

The court observed that the petitioner had the opportunity to amend the petition to include claims under Article 8 but failed to do so before judgment.

“As serious questions on the constitutionality of the National Prayer Breakfast were raised in the submissions, the same must be the subject of a separate inquiry and not this petition,” the judge ruled.

On claims that holding the event at Safari Park Hotel was discriminatory and violated Article 27 of the Constitution, the court found no evidence of unfair discrimination.

The respondents told the court that the venue had been identified through a procurement process compliant with Article 227 of the Constitution and that the event was accessible to the public through live broadcasts.

“It should appear to me that the event is reasonably accessible and that inputs have been made to broadcast the same,” the judge stated.

However, the court found that the petitioner’s rights to access information and fair administrative action had been violated after the respondents failed to provide information sought in a letter dated March 13, 2025.

The court ordered the national assembly to jointly or separately provide the requested information within 30 days in a format accessible to lay persons.

The judge further found that the Commission on Administrative Justice acted diligently and promptly in responding to the petitioner’s complaints and could not be faulted.

The case had been filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyiaka who sought  to block Parliament from organizing the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast using public funds. 

He argued that using state resources for the event violates the separation of powers.