Were Eritrean forces “seen entering towns” in Tigray “after crossing border”, as an AP headline states?

What was claimed

On the morning of 8 October, the Associated Press published a report from Mekelle. Its headline was a claim with a source: “Eritrean soldiers entered northern Ethiopian towns, government-allied commander says” A.

Within a few hours the headline had changed. By 12:20 GMT the same story carried a new one: “Eritrean forces seen entering towns in Ethiopia’s Tigray region after crossing border” B. The attribution to the commander was gone. In its place were two statements of fact: that Eritrean forces had been seen in the towns, and that they had crossed the border.

NBC News, which republished the story at 10:54 GMT under an AP byline, went further: “Eritrean troops cross into northern Ethiopia as conflict escalates” C.

AP stories are republished by hundreds of outlets, and both versions of the headline are still online. We have checked what the headlines state against what the story beneath them says.

What the story itself says

The text of the story did not change in the way the headline did. Every version we have seen rests on the same two sources, and every version says “The Associated Press could not independently verify either account” A B C.

• The commander is Ermiyas Ababu of the Tigray Peace Force, a militia allied with the Ethiopian government. He did not say he saw Eritrean troops himself. AP reports him “citing reports from his personnel” A.
• ACLED, the conflict monitor, said Eritrean troops crossed the border at Zalambessa and came under drone attack. The updated story adds that an ACLED analyst said sources identified the troops by uniforms, vehicles and number plates. ACLED did not name those sources, and AP says ACLED had not answered a question about the basis for its claims B.

The only residents AP quotes by name are in Shire. They describe Tigrayan forces leaving the town, not Eritrean troops arriving C.

The word “seen”

The rewritten headline says Eritrean forces were “seen”. The story does not name anyone who says they saw them. The commander relays what his personnel told him. ACLED relays what its unnamed sources told it.

Other outlets did find eyewitnesses. Two people told Reuters on 7 October that they saw soldiers they identified as Eritrean pass through Adigrat. Reuters said it could not verify their accounts D. Those witnesses are not in AP’s story, and they are not what AP’s headline rests on.

What has emerged since

Since 8 October, the strongest new material has been video. On 10 October the fact-checking site Misbar geolocated a clip circulating as showing Eritrean forces to the main road through Idaga Hamus. It found that a truck’s number plate resembled the design used for Eritrean commercial vehicles, though the number itself could not be read E. The Critical Threats Project, a US research group, said it had “partially corroborated” reports of an Eritrean advance through Adigrat, but was “unable to fully confirm these claims” F.

This is real evidence that troops and vehicles were on that road. It does not establish whose troops they were, or when they were filmed. Eritrea’s information minister has denied that Eritrean forces were there G.

Our verdict

Unsupported. AP’s first headline correctly presented the crossing as one commander’s claim. The rewritten headline, and NBC News’s version, state it as fact, and the AP headline adds that the troops were “seen”. The story beneath them names no one who saw them, rests on two sources, and says AP could verify neither.