GHAI: Problem of tenants of state homes

Are you a tenant? If so, what happens if there is something you don’t like about your home – the colour of the paint, the arrangement of the units in the kitchen, or the fact that there is only one bedroom when you think the space could accommodate two?

If you said something to the landlord, what do you imagine the (printable) response would be?

“If you don’t like it you can move somewhere else”.

“I have to keep it in repair but I don’t have to reorganise it to please you”.

“It was repainted when the last tenant left – that is what the law requires”.

And “No you can’t do this at your expense – how do I know how long you will stay?”

State House

Apparently things are different if you are the President, or Deputy President. However, not every President has actually lived in State House.

Jomo Kenyatta stayed mostly in Gatundu and Moi turned what had been his vice-presidential official residence into his private residence and lived there till his death.

But it is generally probably more convenient for the state agencies, especially security, for the President to stay at State House.

Our President and DP are people with permission to live in these houses. The houses do not belong to them and they have no right to alter what does not belong to them.

They have limited tenure – probably five years (though not all DPs can guarantee this!) – and a maximum of 10. “It’s a national monument” protested one person on X about Ruto’s changes to State House.

In a sense yes. It is a sort of symbol – of authority and of continuity - more so than its occupants. We have seen that this week. Some people might feel it is a colonial relic.

But changing it should surely not be a matter for an individual President. It is surprising that it is not a national monument in another sense.

A place or building can be declared to be a monument by the cabinet secretary. If it belongs to the government, the National Museums of Kenya would have guardianship.

Maybe we need clearer legislation to deal with official residences, and maybe other important public buildings. Leaving it to the occupants seems a bad idea.

They are likely to let it get run down or carry out unnecessary development, as we have seen. There must be a way to ensure the President and DP are comfortable where they live without giving them a free hand to waste public money.

I suggest we also minimise the number of official residences. They cause constant problems and maintenance is not a strong point in Kenya.

Actually the White House deteriorated so badly it had to be internally totally rebuilt around 1950 at a cost of $61.4 million (Sh69 billion).

Other countries The White House is, of course, the official residence of the US President. Past Presidents have added amenities to it – like a swimming pool. Now an incoming President is given $100,000 (Sh12.9 million) to use on the personal quarters in the house – which would allow for redecoration but not for alterations.

It also covers the Oval Office. A similar arrangement applies to the British Prime Minister’s official residence and office – 10 Downing Street.

The PM can spend £30,000 (Sh5 million) a year of public money on the flat, which is the personal residence. Prime Ministers have been known to spend their own money on redecoration.

When Boris Johnson wanted more – about £200,000 (Sh25 million) ¬altogether – but could or would not pay, the party decided to raise donations – in other words, government would not pay.

In the US there is a special Act of Congress from 1961 that deals with the aspect of the White House as a public museum and with the care of precious works of art that it contains.

And Lyndon Johnson set up a committee in an Executive Order which says: “Whereas the White House, as the home of the highest elective officer of the US – symboliSes the American ideal of responsible self-government – is emblematic of our democracy and our national purpose – has been intimately associated with the personal and social life of the Presidents of the US and many of their official acts – occupies a particular place in the heart of every American citizen.” Again this is concerned with the more public aspects and the valuable artworks.

There is even a White House Historical Association that supports this public and artistic side of the building’s role (https://www.whitehousehistory.org/support).

Back to State House

We have never treated State House with the respect it deserves, I suggest.

It has been totally closed to most Kenyans. Tours of parts of the White House are possible. And the gardens of the Indian presidential palace (Rashtrapati Bhavan) are open to the public for about two months each year, free of charge, with certain days set aside for certain groups, such as differently abled persons or women.

The idea of wananchi being allowed into State House, even the grounds, is of course ludicrous at present. All most of us see is a fence with warning notices about not taking photographs in a protected area and maybe a glimpse of the building between the trees from a certain angle.

It is hard for it to be a symbol of anything for Kenyans when they can hardly see it. But I suggest it is time we made some legal arrangement to try to ensure it is properly cared for and not at the mercy of Presidents with no historical, artistic or other sensitivity who think there is money to burn if it affects them.

Maybe some sort of advisory and inspection body could be drawn from relevant government agencies, the National Museums of Kenya, the National Construction Authority and the architects’ professional body.

The Constitution

This is Katiba Corner – so what does the constitution have to say? The public seal (and the President) are national symbols. State House is not. The constitution has a provision that usually ignored which says, “All land in Kenya belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and as individuals.” (Article 61( 1 ) In other words there is no such thing as government land if that does not mean the people.

State House certainly does not belong to the President. And it cannot belong to the government. So it belongs to the whole people of Kenya – the government is just a trustee for the people. Second – monuments.

“Ancient and historical monuments of national importance” are among the functions assigned to the national level of government. I would argue not only does this mean they are a national and not a county responsibility – but they are a duty. They have specific recognition in the constitution.

This might not win a case in court, but I would argue that taking national responsibility for State House is something obviously contemplated by the constitution as happening at the level of national government. I fear we could not leave the National Museums of Kenya to be responsible for the building – they barely have enough funding for their own buildings.

Turning to the self-centredness and extravagance of those who want public residences changed according to their whims: First of all the insistence that “public money shall be used in a prudent and responsible way” (Article 201 ). Proper maintenance is also a prudent use of money rather than waiting for decay to set in.

Finally there is Chapter Six. Does insisting on the expenditure of (scarce) public money on unnecessary changes to one’s official residence really “bring honour to the nation and dignity to the office” (Article 73( 1( 2 ))?