By Yinka Giwa
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has absolved its chairman, Joash Ojo Amupitan, of allegations linking him to a controversial partisan post on X (formerly Twitter), but the decision has triggered a new wave of criticism from analysts and digital experts who question the credibility of the commission’s findings.
INEC, in a statement issued in Abuja by the Chief Press Secretary to the chairman, Adedayo Oketola, said the clearance followed what it described as a “comprehensive, multi-layered forensic investigation” conducted by an independent cybersecurity expert.
According to the commission, the probe utilised platform data from X, internet archive records, open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools, identity forensics, and cross-platform analysis, concluding that the handle @joashamupitan was fake and part of a coordinated disinformation campaign.
Oketola stated that the chairman does not operate any personal X account and that all posts, replies, and screenshots attributed to him were “fraudulent, forensically unverifiable, and technically impossible.”
The controversy stems from viral posts circulated on April 10, 2026, alleging that Amupitan responded “Victory is sure” to a political tweet during the 2023 election cycle, raising concerns about his neutrality. The claim gained traction after screenshots and alleged digital traces were widely shared online.
However, INEC’s forensic report dismissed the allegation, citing what it described as key inconsistencies. These included the absence of any digital linkage between the account and the chairman’s verified contact details, the lack of historical records of the account on the Internet Archive prior to April 2026, and the non-existence of the alleged reply on X’s live platform.
The commission also pointed to a timeline anomaly, stating that timestamp analysis showed the purported reply was posted 13 minutes before the original tweet—an occurrence it described as “technically impossible” and proof of fabrication.
INEC further noted that the account was later renamed @sundayvibe00, set to private, and labelled as a parody account on the same day the controversy emerged, which it interpreted as evidence of impersonation and subsequent damage control.
“The forensic evidence is comprehensive, multi-sourced, and unambiguous. The posts attributed to the chairman are fabricated,” the statement said, adding that the findings had been forwarded to law enforcement agencies. The commission also cautioned media organisations against amplifying unverified content, stressing that virality does not equate to authenticity.
Despite these assertions, the commission’s conclusions have been met with widespread scepticism.
Media scholar Farooq Kperogi dismissed the report as “self-exoneration,” arguing that an investigation conducted under the authority of the same institution lacks credibility. He also challenged INEC’s reliance on timestamp discrepancies, suggesting that post-editing of tweets could explain the apparent inconsistency.
Digital governance and artificial intelligence expert Akintunde Babatunde similarly faulted the methodology, warning that the commission’s conclusions do not meet the standard of proof it claims.
While acknowledging that impersonation of public officials is common, Babatunde argued that INEC’s forensic claims “do not carry the weight placed on them,” pointing to several gaps in the analysis. He said the “impossible timestamp” cited by INEC could have multiple explanations, including timezone differences, device clock errors, or post edits—none of which, he noted, were systematically ruled out.
He also criticised the commission’s reliance on the Internet Archive, stating that the absence of records does not prove the account never existed, as most personal X accounts are not routinely captured by the platform.
On the issue of identity linkage, Babatunde said failed password recovery tests cannot conclusively establish ownership or non-ownership of an account, noting that such systems are designed to prevent disclosure of user information. He further questioned INEC’s handling of claims that a phone number linked to the chairman appeared in connection with the account, arguing that the commission failed to provide a convincing alternative explanation.
The expert also raised concerns about the sudden transformation of the disputed handle into @sundayvibe00 and its subsequent designation as a parody account, describing the sequence as “extraordinary and undocumented.”
He warned against what he described as the overuse of artificial intelligence as an explanatory tool, noting that INEC did not present any technical evidence—such as pixel analysis, metadata, or compression inconsistencies—to support claims that the screenshots were fabricated using AI.
Babatunde concluded that while the controversy does not definitively prove the account belonged to the INEC chairman, the commission has also “not proven what it claims to have proven,” urging it to publish the full forensic report, disclose the identity of the expert involved, and provide verifiable evidence to support its conclusions.
The dispute has intensified public debate over digital misinformation, transparency, and institutional credibility, particularly as Nigeria approaches another electoral cycle where trust in the electoral body is expected to play a critical role.