Fresh doubts have trailed the credibility of a forensic investigation conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to clear its chairman, Joash Amupitan, of alleged partisan activity on X, with experts and commentators dismissing the report as inadequate and self-serving.
INEC had announced that a “multi-layered forensic and digital investigation” found no link between Amupitan and an X account accused of posting messages supportive of President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) during the 2023 election period.
The commission described the account as a case of digital impersonation, insisting that all alleged posts were fabricated and “forensically unverifiable.” It also cited what it called technical inconsistencies, including a timestamp anomaly which, according to the report, showed a reply appearing before the original post—a scenario it said was impossible.
However, the report has been met with widespread skepticism.
Technology expert Gbenga Sesan criticised the findings, arguing that the conclusions were built on weak assumptions and questionable interpretations of digital evidence.
Sesan said the reliance on username changes and account renaming as proof of impersonation was not convincing, noting that such actions could equally be used to obscure ownership rather than prove it.
He also rejected INEC’s use of the Wayback Machine as conclusive evidence, stressing that web archives do not capture all online activity and cannot be relied upon to definitively prove that an account never existed.
On the contentious timestamp issue, Sesan said INEC’s conclusion ignored a crucial factor - that the original post referenced in the controversy had been edited.
According to him, edits can alter timestamps, making it misleading to claim that a reply predating a post is “impossible” without examining the post’s edit history.
Similarly, media scholar Farooq Kperogi described the exercise as a classic case of institutional self-exoneration.
Kperogi argued that INEC’s position lacked evidential depth and relied heavily on assertions rather than verifiable proof.
He pointed to what he described as “circumstantial but compelling” evidence linking the disputed account to Amupitan, including email addresses and phone numbers reportedly associated with the account that correspond with details in the chairman’s public records.
He also faulted INEC’s dismissal of such links, noting that password recovery prompts that reveal masked versions of known contact details can indicate account ownership.
Kperogi further criticised the commission’s interpretation of account changes following the controversy, suggesting that locking or renaming an account after public scrutiny could indicate an attempt to erase traces rather than evidence of impersonation.
“The absence of archived data is not proof of nonexistence,” he added, dismissing INEC’s reliance on the Wayback Machine to support its conclusions.
Social media users who initially raised the alarm have also continued to challenge the commission’s claims, particularly regarding the timeline of the alleged interaction.
An X user, Harry Da Diegot (@trigottista), argued that the original post referenced in the viral screenshots was first made at 4:02 p.m. on March 18, 2023, while the reply attributed to Amupitan appeared at 4:05 p.m.
He explained that the post was later edited at 4:18 p.m., which altered its timestamp and created confusion about the sequence of events.
Another user, KWEKU THE HUSTLER (@Urchilla01), provided a similar breakdown, insisting that the reply came after the original post and that INEC’s “impossibility” claim was based on a misunderstanding of how edits affect timestamps on X.
Despite the criticisms, INEC has maintained its stance, reiterating that there is no connection between Amupitan and the account.
The commission said forensic checks found no linkage between the account and any email address or phone number belonging to the chairman, dismissing claims based on BVN and data breach records as unreliable.
It also argued that the absence of the alleged reply on the live X platform supports its conclusion that the content was fabricated.
INEC further stated that its investigation uncovered a wider network of impersonation across multiple platforms, suggesting a coordinated attempt to manipulate public perception.
The commission has referred the matter to law enforcement agencies, calling for those behind the alleged impersonation and circulation of false information to be identified and prosecuted.
Nevertheless, the controversy continues to generate debate, with critics warning that the manner in which the issue is handled could impact public confidence in the electoral body.
Leave a Reply