Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua is facing sharp scrutiny after claiming that President William Samoei Ruto was out of the country during the period surrounding an alleged assassination plot against him in Othaya, Nyeri County.
Gachagua alleged that President Ruto planned for his assassination to take place at Witima ACK Church on Sunday, 25 January 2026, and that the President deliberately “ran away” to Dubai on Friday, 23 January to avoid being implicated. According to this narrative, Ruto remained in Dubai watching events unfold and only returned after the alleged mission failed.
However, this claim has raised serious factual questions.
A review of publicly available information from the President’s official social media pages, State House communications, and posts by Deputy President Kithure Kindiki suggests that President Ruto was actively engaged in official duties in Kenya on Friday 23rd and Saturday 24th January. Photographs, statements, and event updates shared during those days indicate the President was not abroad, as alleged.
It is also publicly documented that President Ruto attended church on Sunday, 25 January, further weakening the claim that he was out of the country during the critical period described by Gachagua. No credible evidence has been presented to show that the President traveled to Dubai on the dates in question or that he returned only after the alleged plot failed.
The contradiction between Gachagua’s claims and publicly verifiable records has fueled concerns about the accuracy and intent of his statements. Critics argue that such serious accusations, especially those involving assassination plots and presidential conduct, demand evidence rather than speculation.
As the political temperature rises, Kenyans are increasingly calling for facts, clarity, and accountability. Many observers warn that spreading unverified claims risks misleading the public and inflaming political tensions. In a democracy, they argue, citizens should be free to question leaders’ statements without being dismissed or labeled for demanding proof.
Ultimately, the burden remains on those making extraordinary claims to provide credible evidence to support them.
