Doctored clip falsely claims Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta announced new bid for presidency
'Uhuru what's up? What have you decided?' reads the Swahili text overlay on a TikTok video published on March 18, 2025.
The clip, shared more than 2,000 times, shows Kenyatta giving an address from behind a lectern with a presidential seal.
'Fellow Kenyans, in 2027 I will be vying for president. I've made a decision of coming back to politics in full force. Kindly, I would like to ask for your votes when the time comes,' Kenyatta appears to say.
Kenyatta retired after leading the country from 2013-2022, meeting the two-term constitutional limit an individual can serve as president (archived here and here).
He ruled alongside incumbent William Ruto, but their relationship soured before the end of their second term together (archived here).
In the run-up to the 2022 general election, Kenyatta endorsed opposition leader Raila Odinga who lost to Ruto (archived here).
As the country prepares for the 2027 general election, Kenyatta, who is still at odds with Ruto, has yet to publicly announce his preferred candidate. His Jubilee Party has, however, endorsed former interior cabinet secretary Fred Matiang'i (archived here).
Ruto is determined to retain his seat and serve a second term as Kenya's leader (archived here).
But the TikTok video purportedly showing Kenyatta announcing his intention to run for president again is doctored.
AFP Fact Check conducted reverse image searches on keyframes from the clip and found the original footage published by Kenyan media outlet NTV on September 5, 2022 (archived here).
The video's title reads: 'President Uhuru Kenyatta's speech after Supreme Court judgement.'
At the time, Kenyatta was giving his views on the electoral process and the Supreme Court's verdict to uphold Ruto's win over Odinga. He vowed a smooth transition.
In both videos, Kenyatta can be seen standing behind the same lectern, wearing a navy-blue shirt withs flags in the background.
In the segment from the original video used in the TikTok clip, what Kenyatta actually says is: 'Fellow Kenyans, on August 9, 2022, Kenyans participated in an election that ushered in new leaders at all levels of our governance realm.'
He does not talk about running for office in 2027.
AFP Fact Check analysed the audio from the TikTok clip with InVID-WeVerify's audio detection tool. The results suggested strong evidence of voice cloning.
We found no credible reports of Kenyatta announcing his intentions to vie for the presidency in 2027.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
TikTok influencer slammed for viral video about ‘unchic' fashion
Tara Langdale talked to Fox News Digital about how she received hurtful messages from critics after a not-so-serious fashion post describing what she views as 'unchic' went viral, spawning a cascade of events that made her apolitical post a victim of attacks. The self-described stay-at-home working mom amassed some 250,000 views and found herself on the receiving end of some hate after an April 7 TikTok of her seated, drinking from a wine glass with nicely done hair, gold jewelry and manicured nails as she skimmed through a list of 'unchic' fashion sins. Advertisement Tattoos, Lululemon, baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines were just a few that made part one of Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list, which drew backlash from seething critics who called her out with a political twist. 'Voting for Trump is unchic,' one said. 'To her, privilege = chic. Hope this helps!' said another. A third said, 'just say you're a republican and go lmao,' while a slew of commenters took exception to her tattoo stance and ranted about classism. Advertisement The video even caught The Guardian's attention, prompting an article that coined 'chic' as 'a shorthand for a type of conservative-coded aesthetic' and spoke of the 'rigid and airbrushed' looks of Trump allies, sch as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 4 Tara Langdale received backlash for her 'unchic' fashion TikTok. @tara_langdale / TikTok Though Langdale diddles cribe herself as conservative when speaking to Fox News Digital, she insists not everything is about politics. 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said. Advertisement 'I think conservativism is more of culture, religion – all of those things go into your conservativist mindset. Now, if you're talking about conservative style of dress… that's also going to be more like religion and culture,' she went on. 'Of course, if I'm going to church on Sunday, I'm dressing very conservative. I'm going to keep it classy, but if you see me in the street in my regular day-to-day, I am not at all conservative. I would never consider my style to be conservative. But am I conservative? Absolutely, so I can differentiate the two. I know that the internet has a hard time doing that.' 4 Lululemon made Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list — along with baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines. REUTERS 4 Tattoos were also on Langdale's list. xartproduction – Langdale addressed the politicized dogma, saying she doesn't understand why TikTok users jumped to conclusions about 'conservative' or 'Republican makeup' as they did. Advertisement 'Because I'm blonde, because I have more of a natural look about me, I'm not fully glammed all the time… I'm really not sure how that makes me appear conservative, but, again, I just think when people don't agree with what you say, they have to find a way to discredit you, and that's just an easy tactic,' she continued. At the same time, Langdale pushed back against the idea of her video implying that people too poor to afford expensive items are automatically 'unchic,' and pointed to brand-name items like athletic apparel brand Lululemon, Apple Watches and Golden Goose sneakers – all of which can be pricey – as evidence pointing to the contrary. 'Just keep in mind that money talks and wealth whispers, and I don't know any wealthy people that are wearing Gucci across their chest,' she said in her original post. Langdale explained that the TikTok trend of users showcasing 'things I find incredibly chic' grabbed her attention as they began circulating on the app. She found them 'pretentious and off-putting,' so she felt compelled to take her own stab at the video. 4 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said about the political criticism she received. @tara_langdale / TikTok 'Of course, my video came off as pretentious and off-putting as well, but it felt like a certain level of cringe for me, and I don't like to personally attack anybody on social media, so I wouldn't go after a specific creator. I just kind of wanted to hop on the trend… so that was my initial, 'Why I created the video.'' Advertisement Langdale shared that her direct messages on the platform have been 'insane' with threats and comments about her family since the video went viral. 'It does make you step back and take a pause,' she shared. 'Like, is this really worth it for how crazy people react? And I would never want to put my family in danger, but I think a lot of it is just the keyboard pirates that are just back there behind their computer typing whatever they can to try to get more likes in the comments,' Langdale added.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sound Off: June 7, 2025
Sun Herald readers weigh in on local and national topics. My federal tax forms were filed on Feb. 6, and I was told the refund would take 'a few weeks.' Today is June 6, and still no refund. After repeatedly calling the 800 number, I personally drove to the local IRS office on Old Highway 49 in Gulfport. A security guard made me empty all my pockets and he frisked me. Then he sent me to the desk. The woman at the desk told me I had to call an 800 number to make an appointment. Is this any way to treat honest taxpayers? Orders and actions by the Trump Administration have been thwarted and obstructed by separate U.S. District Court judges around the country seven times in the past week alone. This was a publicly stated goal of left wing organizations during the election when it became clear that Trump would likely be elected. The American people are outraged by the blatant judicial overreach displayed by certain courts, issuing rulings far beyond their constitutional authority. This reckless abuse of power undermines the very foundation of our system of checks and balances and signals that parts of the judiciary have gone completely off the rails. If this continues unchecked, either the Supreme Court must intervene to restore order, or the people themselves will lose all confidence in the judiciary. Without accountability, even legitimate rulings on real crimes will be viewed with skepticism, threatening the rule of law itself. It matters not whether a judge is at the city level or a Supreme Court justice. Their job is to interpret the law and, ultimately, the constitution. Whether you, I or the president breaks the law, we are still subject to it and the ultimate law of the country, the constitution. I was wanting to give some information to the uninformed person who thinks law abiding citizens should be able to get full automatic weapons, since they say criminals have them. Law-abiding citizens already can get fully automatic weapons. They are just heavily regulated, limited in number, and very expensive. Criminals do not have them, and that is why we don't see them used in crimes. I apologize in advance for any harm caused by introducing facts and reality into your liberal echo chamber. The CDC says guns are the number one killer of children. Christians who claim to be pro-life need to really examine their position on gun safety regulations. How much money have you made betting on President Trump to flip-flop on tariffs? And if the answer is nothing, it's time to get on the train. Send your Sound Offs to soundoff@
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Where are the compassionate and moderating voices on Trump's travel ban?
Before he secured the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Donald Trump announced that he would seek 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' Reaction, including from human rights organizations and fellow Republicans, was swift, and, for the most part, was characterized by astonishment, outrage and condemnation. Marco Rubio posted online, 'I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.' At that time, Trump was an unknown entity in politics, and many believed he would never actually seek to implement the outrageous things he said. Unfortunately, one of Trump's first actions as a newly inaugurated president in January 2017 was to sign an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This was immediately met with lawsuits and protests. The order was amended two different times in response to court challenges; eventually, a scaled-back version was upheld by the Supreme Court. To their credit, many leaders and members of the president's party were dismayed by this ban at the time. They saw it for what it was — a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They could see it as a clear attack on the pluralism that has long guaranteed that our nation — a nation of immigrants — remains a haven for people seeking to practice their religion according to their conscience while also contributing to society. When candidate Trump first voiced his pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. in 2015, Utah Governor Herbert spoke out strongly against this idea: 'I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.' We remember both the early rhetoric of candidate Trump and the later actions of President Trump well. It was shocking and disorienting to watch his efforts to discriminate against others. It was disheartening to watch a political party descend into unchristian and uncharitable legalese, all with the aim to exclude others based solely on their faith or nationality. Mormon Women for Ethical Government was born in response to these efforts. At the outset, MWEG's founders envisioned a small group of women working together through peaceful, faithful, nonpartisan and proactive ways to counteract the unbelievable turn the government was making. But these women were not alone in their desire to take action. They were quickly joined by thousands of other women of faith who were ready to work for a more peaceful, just and ethical world. Over time, MWEG has become a strong voice in advocating for compassionate and moderating forces in government. The organization continues to attract women who want to proactively and peacefully support systems rooted in constitutional principles and the rule of law. We now have women in all 50 states engaging in the political arena as informed and principled citizens. Though much has changed since the formation of MWEG eight years ago, immigration remains a central and divisive issue. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, have been victims of dehumanizing language and unfair stereotyping. The current administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process. It has detained students without cause, deported a man by mistake and refused a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return, attempted to end birthright citizenship, revoked student visas, ended temporary protected status for many, and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This week, President Trump signed another proclamation that bans citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. In comparison to eight years ago, the large-scale response has been muted or even resigned. As the world has changed and political rhetoric has become ever more extreme, have we changed with it? Do things that were once the source of personal outrage and deep concern still concern us? Has our once-strong commitment to love our neighbor as ourself weakened? And, if we cannot love them, are we at least as committed to maintaining their claim to Constitutional protections as we were eight years ago? As an organization, MWEG is committed to amplifying the best aspects of our Christian faith. That faith is rooted in a gospel of generosity. We are also committed to preserving the Constitution that, among other things, protects our ability, as members of a minority faith, to participate freely in civic life, to express our views and to practice our religion without fear of repercussions. Actions like this ban seem directed at a particular group, but they actually undermine the constitutional rights that protect all of us from government overreach. As citizens of a free nation, we can and should speak out when we see those rights being violated. In 2017, the threat was widely recognized by leaders and citizens from both parties. It is worth contemplating why this is no longer the case.
