His critique targets what he sees as a steady erosion of the long-held convention separating state authority from party machinery, warning that the shift carries serious symbolic and constitutional consequences.
For decades, State House has been treated as a neutral centre of power, distinct from partisan contestation.
Natembeya draws attention to past administrations to illustrate this norm. Under Daniel arap Moi, KANU dominated politics, yet most party engagements were conducted away from the official seat of government.
Mwai Kibaki maintained a clear divide between his executive responsibilities and Party of National Unity activities, reinforcing the idea that State House belonged to the nation, not a party.
Even during the highly mobilised Jubilee era under Uhuru Kenyatta, State House largely remained a venue for diplomacy, state consultations, and official national business rather than party planning.
According to Natembeya, the presidency is more than the office of the individual elected to lead; it represents the collective authority of the Republic.
When State House is used for party strategy or mobilisation, it risks being perceived as exclusive, undermining its role as a shared national institution.
This perception, he argues, alienates citizens who fund the state but do not identify with the ruling party.
The governor further notes that the core duties conducted at State House—security briefings, diplomatic engagements, and constitutional decision-making—demand an atmosphere of restraint and impartiality.
Blurring these functions with partisan interests weakens public confidence in the neutrality of the executive.
Natembeya’s intervention is ultimately a call to restore institutional boundaries.
He argues that for the presidency to retain moral authority and national legitimacy, State House must remain a space that reflects unity and constitutional order, not an extension of party operations.
