A cybersecurity analyst has challenged the forensic basis of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s statement clearing its chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, of operating a controversial X account, arguing that the commission’s conclusions are overstated and not fully supported by the evidence presented. If you missed it, read here.
In a detailed post on X, analyst Akíntúndé Babátúndé said INEC’s public statement on the disputed @joashamupitan account “deserves a careful reading,” adding that while impersonation of Nigerian public officials is real and common, “the forensic argument does not carry the weight INEC places on it.”
He said: “At the confidence level the statement claims (‘beyond reasonable doubt,’ ‘physically impossible,’ ‘definitive proof’) the reasoning should be airtight. It is not.”
Babátúndé took issue with INEC’s claim that the timestamp on the alleged reply made the screenshot impossible, arguing that several ordinary explanations were not ruled out. “A 13-minute gap between an alleged reply and the original post has multiple ordinary explanations: device clock errors, timezone mismatches, edited posts, or basic image editing software,” he wrote. “Citing AI and deepfakes without any pixel, metadata, or compression analysis is not forensics.”
He also faulted the commission’s reliance on the Wayback Machine, saying the absence of archived captures of the disputed account does not prove it never existed. “The Internet Archive does not systematically crawl personal X profiles. Absence of captures is the norm for most genuine accounts. Any practising OSINT researcher knows this,” he said.
On INEC’s email and phone linkage tests, Babátúndé argued that failed password recovery attempts on X do not prove the account was never linked to those details. “Users can change or remove recovery contacts at any time. A negative result today says nothing about past ownership,” he wrote.
He further criticised the way INEC addressed the phone number linked to Prof. Amupitan’s identity through BVN data. “The statement admits the phone number 0803***4099 returns ‘Joash Ojo Amupitan’ on BVN query, then pivots to saying a BVN record cannot establish social media ownership. That may be technically true, but it is not an answer. If the Chairman’s verified phone number surfaces in connection with this account, what is the alternative explanation? None is offered.”
Babátúndé also questioned the account transition from @joashamupitan to @sundayvibe00, which INEC cited as part of its impersonation finding. “A cybersecurity researcher acquiring the exact disputed handle on the exact day screenshots went viral, then issuing a disclaimer INEC now cites as evidence, requires documentation,” he said. “Who is Coy Emerald? How was the handle reclaimed? When was the disclaimer posted? None of this is answered.”
He added that INEC’s reading of the account’s “Parody” label was too one-sided. “Self-labelling as parody is at least as consistent with a real account holder retroactively shielding themselves after an embarrassing post went viral. Impersonators rarely volunteer a parody label because it weakens their deception,” he wrote.
The analyst also said the commission too quickly dismissed data breach material that appeared to connect Prof. Amupitan’s identity to a Twitter account. “The statement acknowledges breach datasets show Prof. Amupitan’s identity connected to a Twitter account alongside Apple, LinkedIn, and Office 365, then argues this does not prove ownership of this specific handle. Fine. But it never asks the more obvious question: if he had some Twitter account per these records, which one was it?”
He warned against what he described as overuse of artificial intelligence as an explanation without technical proof. “The statement invokes generative AI without showing a single AI artifact in the screenshots,” he said, describing the move as part of what experts call “the liar’s dividend”, the idea that as fake content becomes easier to create, genuine content also becomes easier to deny.
Babátúndé didn’t make a definitive claim that the account belonged to Prof. Amupitan, but insisted INEC had not met the standard it claimed. “None of this settles whether the account was or was not Prof. Amupitan’s. What it settles is that this statement has not proven what it claims to have proven,” he wrote.
He ended by calling on the electoral body to release fuller evidence. “The forensic standard INEC applies to its own communications will set the tone for every disputed claim in the 2027 cycle,” he said. “Publish the report. Name the expert. Show the work.”
Read the tweets below……………………………..
