Amupitan’s alleged X account: Analysts, IT expert fault INEC’s ‘forensic’ probe

The controversy surrounding an alleged X (formerly Twitter) account linked to the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, has deepened, as analysts and technology experts have faulted the commission’s forensic investigation that cleared him of wrongdoing.

INEC had on Monday released the outcome of what it described as a “multi-layered forensic and digital investigation,” insisting that the account in question and all posts attributed to Amupitan were fabricated and part of a coordinated disinformation campaign.

The commission’s position, conveyed in a statement by the chairman’s Chief Press Secretary, Adedayo Oketola, maintained that the alleged X account, @joashamupitan, was a case of digital impersonation, adding that there was no verifiable link between the account and Amupitan.

The controversy began on April 10 after social media users circulated screenshots purportedly showing the INEC chairman posting partisan content in support of President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) during the 2023 election cycle. One of the posts allegedly read, “Victory is sure,” in response to another user.

INEC, however, denied ownership of the account and commissioned what it called an independent forensic expert to investigate the claims. The report concluded that the posts were “forensically unverifiable,” “technically impossible,” and part of a coordinated attempt to mislead the public.

But the commission’s conclusions have been widely challenged by experts and commentators, who argue that the findings are flawed, inconsistent, and lacking in credibility.

Among the most prominent critics is Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, who dismissed the report as fundamentally weak.

In a detailed reaction, Sesan said INEC’s initial denial of the alleged posts drew his attention to the issue, adding that the subsequent forensic report failed to withstand basic scrutiny.

He questioned the credibility of the so-called independent investigator and raised concerns about the interpretation of technical evidence presented in the report.

On the claim that changes to the account’s username indicated impersonation, Sesan argued that such alterations could just as easily be part of a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth.

According to him, multiple accounts bearing similar names may have been created to muddy the waters, rather than to prove impersonation.

Sesan also faulted INEC’s reliance on the Wayback Machine as “definite proof” of account fabrication, noting that web archiving tools do not capture all online activity and therefore cannot be used as conclusive evidence.

He further criticised the commission’s timestamp analysis, describing it as misleading. The report had claimed that the alleged reply by Amupitan appeared 13 minutes before the original post it responded to, making it “physically impossible.”

However, Sesan pointed out that the original post had been edited, which could have altered its timestamp and rendered INEC’s conclusion invalid.

“The use of the word ‘impossible’ in this context is questionable,” he argued, adding that such definitive claims are not typical of rigorous forensic analysis.

Echoing similar concerns, US-based Nigerian scholar Farooq Kperogi described INEC’s report as a “farcical self-acquittal.”

In a strongly worded critique, Kperogi likened the commission’s investigation to a situation where an individual sets an exam, marks it, and declares themselves successful.

He argued that the report failed to provide concrete evidence to support its conclusions, instead relying on what he called “a blizzard of deceitful phrases.”

Kperogi also challenged the timestamp argument, noting that the parent tweet referenced in the controversy had been edited, which would naturally affect its visible timestamp.

“The reply reflected the timestamp of the earlier version of the post before it was edited,” he said.

He further pointed to what he described as compelling circumstantial evidence linking the account to Amupitan, including email addresses and phone numbers reportedly associated with the account that match details on the chairman’s official curriculum vitae.

According to him, repeated password recovery attempts that reveal masked versions of known contact details constitute significant evidence of a connection.

On INEC’s dismissal of the Wayback Machine findings, Kperogi argued that the absence of archived data does not prove that an account or post never existed.

“The Wayback Machine does not capture every account or activity, especially low-traffic posts,” he said.

He also questioned INEC’s interpretation of changes made to the account after the controversy broke, suggesting that such actions could indicate an attempt to cover tracks rather than evidence of impersonation.

Beyond expert commentary, several social media users who initially flagged the alleged posts have also disputed INEC’s findings, particularly on the issue of timestamp inconsistencies.

An X user, Harry Da Diegot (@trigottista), provided a detailed breakdown of the timeline, arguing that the original post referenced in the controversy was made at 4:02 p.m. on March 18, 2023, while the alleged reply by Amupitan was posted at 4:05 p.m.—three minutes later.

He explained that the original post was subsequently edited at 4:18 p.m., which altered its timestamp and created the impression that the reply preceded the post.

Another user, KWEKU THE HUSTLER (@Urchilla01), offered a similar analysis, stating that the edited version of the tweet displayed a later timestamp, thereby misleading observers into thinking the reply was made before the original post.

Both users concluded that INEC’s forensic claim of “impossibility” was based on a misunderstanding—or misrepresentation—of how post edits affect timestamps on the X platform.

INEC, however, has stood by its findings, insisting that there is no link between Amupitan and the disputed account.

The commission maintained that forensic tests found no connection between the account and the chairman’s email or phone number, dismissing such claims as “logical fallacies” rather than credible evidence.

It also argued that the disappearance of the alleged reply from the live X platform further supports its conclusion that the content was fabricated.

Additionally, INEC said the investigation uncovered a broader pattern of impersonation across multiple social media platforms, reinforcing its position that the controversy is part of a coordinated disinformation effort.

The commission has since referred the matter to law enforcement agencies, calling for the identification and prosecution of those responsible for creating and circulating the disputed content under Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act.

Despite these assurances, critics remain unconvinced, warning that the handling of the issue could have far-reaching implications for public trust in the electoral body.