A Kenyan businesswoman has sparked heated debate online after breaking down in an emotional video in which she claims customers abandoned her hotel following her public declaration of support for the controversial “Tutam” political slogan.
In the circulating video, the woman, reportedly operating a food business in Kiambu County, is seen walking around her establishment while displaying trays of prepared food, stacks of chapatis and what appear to be empty customer seats. She expresses frustration over the amount of food she says has remained unsold and questions why expressing her political views should affect her livelihood.
The video, which circulated widely on social media over the weekend, has drawn mixed reactions from Kenyans, with some sympathising with the businesswoman while others argue that consumers have the right to choose which businesses they support.
According to reports by K24 Digital and TUKO.co.ke published on October 24 and 25, 2026, respectively, the woman attributed the apparent decline in customers to her support for “Tutam.” However, the claim that her political remarks directly caused customers to abandon the establishment has not been independently verified.
‘I only said Tutam’: Businesswoman makes emotional appeal
In the video, the businesswoman appears distressed as she moves around her restaurant, showing viewers the food she says she prepared in anticipation of customers.
Among the items she displays are chapatis, pilau, meat, matoke and njahi. She questions what she will do with the meals if customers do not return, expressing concern that the food could go to waste.
She argues that she had not intended to offend anyone by expressing her political position and wonders why the declaration appears to have affected her business.
Her frustration grows as she points to the empty seats and the food remaining on the shelves. At one point, she appeals to members of the public to visit the establishment and eat the available food for free rather than allowing it to spoil.
She also asks for forgiveness from those who may have taken offence at her political remarks.
The emotional nature of the appeal has helped the video attract attention, turning what appears to be a small business owner’s complaint into a wider discussion about political divisions and their possible effects on everyday commercial relationships.
Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding the alleged boycott remain unclear. There is no independently verified information establishing how many customers stopped visiting, whether the decline was directly linked to her political remarks or whether other factors contributed to the situation.
What does ‘Tutam’ mean in Kenyan politics?
The controversy comes at a time when political slogans have become increasingly visible in Kenya’s public conversations ahead of the 2027 General Election.
“Tutam,” commonly understood as an abbreviation of “two terms,” is associated with supporters who want President William Ruto to secure a second term in office.
Its counterpart, “Wantam,” meaning “one term,” is used by critics who want Ruto to leave office after his current term.
The two slogans have become shorthand for competing political positions. They are heard in political gatherings, online discussions and everyday conversations, reflecting the divisions emerging as politicians and supporters position themselves ahead of the next election.
An analysis published by the Institute for Security Studies in September 2026 examined how the competing slogans reflect wider political competition, public dissatisfaction and debates about Ruto’s bid for another term.
The slogans are no longer confined to political rallies. Their use in ordinary interactions can make even seemingly casual statements about politics a source of disagreement.
For the businesswoman, the issue is whether her public declaration of support for one political camp has affected the willingness of some customers to buy food from her establishment.
Should political opinions affect someone’s business?
The incident has reopened an important debate: should a business owner face commercial consequences for publicly expressing political opinions?
One argument is that entrepreneurs have the same freedom of expression as other citizens. Supporting a political party, candidate or slogan does not automatically mean that a person intends to insult those who hold different views.
From this perspective, customers should be able to disagree with a business owner’s politics without turning every commercial interaction into a political confrontation.
Another argument centres on consumer choice. Customers generally decide where to spend their money based on factors that can include price, quality, service, convenience and personal values. Some may choose not to patronise a business because they disagree with the owner’s public positions.
A consumer boycott can therefore be a form of peaceful expression, provided it does not involve threats, harassment or violence.
The difficulty arises when political disagreements begin affecting livelihoods and when individuals are judged primarily by their perceived political allegiance rather than the services they provide.
For small businesses operating on tight margins, even a modest reduction in daily sales can have consequences. Unsold food can translate into direct losses because ingredients, cooking fuel, labour and other operating expenses have already been incurred.
However, without independent evidence establishing what happened at this particular hotel, it would be premature to conclude that a politically motivated boycott is responsible for the reported losses.
Kenyans react with humour, criticism and sympathy
The video has generated a range of reactions online, with some users treating the situation as a warning about the risks of publicly declaring political loyalties while running a customer-dependent business.
Others have responded with jokes, suggesting that the businesswoman should take the food to State House or offer it to people associated with the political camp she supports.
Some commenters have argued that business owners should be cautious about making political affiliations central to their public identity. They say a restaurant serves customers with different opinions, and openly taking sides may alienate some of them.
Other users have defended the right of customers to make independent purchasing decisions, arguing that no one is obliged to spend money at an establishment simply because its owner expects support.
The contrasting reactions show how quickly a local business complaint can become part of a national political conversation, particularly when the incident touches on an already divisive campaign slogan.
The online discussion has also raised questions about whether the reactions are proportionate to what the woman actually said and whether the video provides enough information to explain the reported decline in business.
A difficult lesson for small business owners
The incident highlights the complicated relationship between personal expression and commercial reputation in the age of social media.
Business owners increasingly use their public profiles to communicate their values, opinions and interests. That visibility can help them build loyal communities, but it can also expose their businesses to criticism when their views conflict with those of potential customers.
Remaining politically neutral in business communications may help some entrepreneurs appeal to a broader customer base. Others may choose to express their political positions openly, accepting that their audiences could respond in different ways.
Neither approach guarantees commercial success or failure. Customers make decisions for many reasons, and a single viral video cannot establish a general rule about the relationship between political expression and business performance.
For the woman in the circulating clip, the immediate concern appears to be the food she says remains unsold and the possibility of losses. Her appeal for people to come and eat for free reflects the practical pressure that can arise when prepared meals do not find buyers.
Whether customers will return, and whether the alleged boycott was the main reason for the reported decline, remains unclear.
The bigger question: Can Kenyans disagree without hurting livelihoods?
As the country moves closer to the 2027 General Election, political slogans are likely to remain part of everyday conversations. The challenge is how citizens can express competing opinions without turning ordinary social and commercial relationships into hostile encounters.
A business owner should not have to fear intimidation for expressing a lawful political opinion. At the same time, customers should be free to make their own purchasing choices without being threatened or pressured.
The distinction between peaceful consumer choice and harassment is important. Disagreement does not automatically amount to persecution, just as freedom of expression does not guarantee that everyone will agree with a speaker or continue patronising their business.
Ultimately, the businesswoman’s video has prompted a wider conversation about political loyalty, freedom of expression and the economic pressures facing small entrepreneurs.
But the central claim still needs evidence: did customers genuinely abandon the hotel because of the owner’s “Tutam” remarks, or were other factors involved?
What is your view? Should Kenyans separate politics from business, or should customers be free to boycott establishments whose owners support political positions they disagree with?
