Kajiado North MP Onesmus Ngogoyo is under legal fire following a constitutional petition accusing him of misusing public funds by plastering his image, name, and campaign slogans on state-funded projects.

The petition, filed at the High Court by legal advocacy group Sheria Mtaani na Shadrach Wambui, claims the legislator has turned public developments into personal political billboards, allegedly violating the Constitution and eroding public accountability.

Court filings allege that Ngogoyo has routinely branded roads, schools, and health centers, some of which were neither initiated nor financed by hi,m with his personal identity and political messaging.

The petitioner notes that in some cases, the projects predate his election to office.

“This blatant self-promotion using public property,” the petition argues, “is a clear case of misappropriating taxpayer-funded initiatives for private political mileage.”

The legal challenge invokes breaches of several constitutional provisions, including Articles 27, 73, 75, 201, and 232.

According to the suit, public development initiatives fall under the jurisdiction of state agencies like KeRRA, KURA, KeNHA, and NG-CDF committees.

MPs, the petitioner argues, are meant to play a supervisory, not executive role in such matters, as outlined in Article 95 of the Constitution.

By branding his portrait on public infrastructure, the petition contends, the MP misleads citizens into believing that he is directly responsible for these developments, thereby weakening institutional transparency.

The petition references a recent statement by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to the Senate, which condemned such practices as unethical and contrary to leadership and integrity standards.

The EACC pledged to issue an advisory and step up public awareness to curb the misuse.

Advocate Shadrach Wambui, who filed the case, further argues that the conduct could amount to an indirect form of campaigning, giving incumbents undue advantage by using public resources for political promotion a potential breach of the Election Offences Act.

“In a nation grappling with poverty, unemployment, and overstretched social services, diverting limited resources for personal branding is not only reckless but morally troubling,” he added.

The matter raises significant constitutional questions regarding abuse of office, ethical conduct, and the integrity of public resource management.

The High Court, however, did not issue any interim orders. Instead, the judge directed that the application be served to the relevant parties, with further directions scheduled for July 22.

“The application is not certified urgent. No temporary orders will be granted at this stage,” read the court’s brief ruling.