A fresh wave of criticism has emerged over President William Ruto’s decision to build a massive church within the State House compound. The proposed project, which is said to be well underway, has sparked nationwide debate over its timing, cost, and message—particularly at a time when the country is grappling with deep economic challenges and growing religious tensions.
A prominent Christian leader has publicly urged the president to rethink the project, warning that it could spark unnecessary religious divisions and send the wrong signal about the place of faith in a secular government. According to him, while Kenya is predominantly Christian, it is also home to people of other faiths such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Constructing a lavish Christian church within State House, he argued, could be perceived as religious favoritism, threatening national unity and violating the spirit of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of worship.
He proposed a more inclusive solution—constructing a multi-faith auditorium that would allow different religions to hold services under one roof. Not only would that reflect Kenya’s religious diversity, but it would also come at a lower cost. He added that the saved funds could be redirected toward more pressing issues such as healthcare and education, areas where Kenyans are currently experiencing immense strain.
This call for reconsideration came shortly after the president confirmed that construction of the church, allegedly designed to seat 8,000 people, was already in progress. Leaked images of the project show a grand cathedral-like structure dubbed “The Cathedral,” said to be designed by a prominent architectural firm. Reports indicate the project could cost up to KSh 1.2 billion, a figure that has been sharply criticized across social media platforms.
Despite assurances from the president that the project would be privately funded, many Kenyans have voiced their concerns. Citizens point out that such a high-profile religious project—especially on public land—sends a skewed message and could erode trust in the government’s ability to serve all people fairly, regardless of religious affiliation.
Online reactions reflect widespread discontent. Some have sarcastically suggested that, to be fair, the president should also build a mosque, a Hindu temple, and even a club to accommodate all the different people who might visit State House. Others questioned the practicality of building a church large enough for 8,000 people and wondered who exactly would attend regular services there. Many noted that even a smaller structure could suffice if truly meant for the president’s personal worship.
Several commenters called on leaders to instead prioritize public needs—improving hospitals, funding schools, and fixing the broken tax system—rather than erecting grand monuments. Others emphasized that personal faith, while valid and respected, should not be institutionalized in a way that alienates or excludes other belief systems.
The conversation continues to ignite passionate reactions across the country, raising deeper questions about the role of religion in governance and the responsibilities of leaders in a diverse and economically struggling nation.
