AG seeks dismissal of prayer breakfast petition

In grounds of opposition filed in the matter, the Attorney General--listed as the 4th respondent -- said no cause of action has been established against his office.

The petition was filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, who has sued the Parliamentary Service Commission, the National Assembly, the Senate, the Attorney General and the Commission on Administrative Justice.

Suyianka is seeking orders to stop the organisation of the national prayer event using public money and has asked the court to certify the case as urgent.

He is also seeking interim restraining orders pending determination of the main petition.

However, the State Law Office argued that the petitioner’s reliance on Article 35 of the Constitution on access to information is misplaced, saying the right is not absolute and must be pursued through statutory procedures under the Access to Information Act and applicable parliamentary processes.

On allegations of discrimination under Article 27, the Attorney General said the claims are vague and unsupported by evidence of differential treatment.

The AG argued that holding an event at a particular venue — including a five-star hotel — does not, by itself, amount to discrimination, adding that the petitioner had failed to identify a prohibited ground of discrimination or show unequal treatment compared to a similar group.

The Attorney General also faulted the petition for allegedly inviting the court to interfere with internal parliamentary processes without a demonstrated constitutional breach, citing the doctrine of separation of powers.

“The holding of a national prayer breakfast or similar national event does not, per se, amount to a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers,” the Attorney General stated.

On public expenditure, the State argued that the petition does not demonstrate illegality, misappropriation or unconstitutional spending, but merely questions the prudence of the venue and cost — which it said does not amount to a justiciable constitutional dispute.

The Attorney General further said the petition fails to meet the required constitutional threshold for precision in pleadings, and urged the court to dismiss it with costs