- Safiu Kehinde
The Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) boss, Akintunde Babatunde, has faulted the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) forensic report claiming that the controversial X handle linked to its Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan. is fake.
NPO Reported that INEC had yesterday released the report of its investigation over the allegation.
In its findings, the commission revealed that there is no linkage between the X account created in September 2022 and the email address of Amupitan.
The change in the account’s username which now reads @sundayvibe00 was allegedly done by one Coy Emerald, a verified cybersecurity researcher.
On the controversial comment claimed to be evidence of Amupitan’s partisanship, was confirmed to be fabricated.
The findings affirmed that the INEC Chairman was impersonated with the account.
Reacting to the report in a statement issued on its X handle on Monday, Akintunde maintained that the forensic report deserves a careful reading as he noted what he considered as red flags in the report.
While acknowledging the trend of impersonation of Nigerian public officials, the CJID boss held that the forensic lacks strong proofs to back up INEC’s claims.
“First, to be fair: impersonation of Nigerian public officials is real and common, and the pattern of fake social media accounts described is consistent with tactics we have seen before but the forensic argument does not carry the weight INEC places on it.
“At the confidence level the statement claims ( “beyond reasonable doubt,” “physically impossible,” “definitive proof”) the reasoning should be airtight. It is not. Here are a few red flags.” Akintunde wrote.
He noted that the timestamp claim on the controversial comment failed to provide specific explanation on how the said impersonator was able to come up with the comment.
The CIJID boss also faulted the outcome of the Wayback Machine which claimed that there was no record of an X account linked to the Amupitan before the emergence of the one in question.
“The “impossible timestamp” claim overreaches. 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.
“A credible forensic report rules these out one by one. This statement does not mention them. Citing AI and deepfakes without any pixel, metadata, or compression analysis is not forensics.
“The Wayback Machine argument is methodologically wrong. Zero captures of @joashamupitan does not prove the account 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.
The CJID boss also faulted the email-phone linkage tests and the OPay and Bank Verification Number findings.
“The email/phone linkage tests cannot produce the conclusion drawn. Failed password recovery attempts on X prove only that X’s anti-enumeration defences work as designed.
“Users can change or remove recovery contacts at any time. A negative result today says nothing about past ownership.
The OPay/BVN finding is deflected rather than explained. 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.” Akintunde said.
The CJID boss further questioned INEC’s claim that the account was created by cybersecurity researcher while also maintaining that impersonators rarely convert an account with a parody label.
“The @sundayvibe00 handover is extraordinary and undocumented. 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.
“Who is Coy Emerald? How was the handle reclaimed? When was the disclaimer posted? None of this is answered.
“The “Parody” label is read in only one direction. 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 said.
Akintunde further faulted the excessive reference to Artificial Intelligence in the report despite absence of evidence confirming that the X handle and the post are AI generated.
He warned that the forensic standard applied by INEC, which he claimed to be low, made set the tone for every disputed claim during the 2027 General Elections.
“The AI-fabrication framing is doing too much work. Experts call this the liar’s dividend: as fabrication becomes easier, dismissing authentic content as fabricated also becomes easier.
“The statement invokes generative AI without showing a single AI artifact in the screenshots (no pixel anomaly, no compression inconsistency, no metadata finding). The burden of proof belongs to whoever makes the claim.
“None of these settles whether the account was or was not Prof. Amupitan’s. What settle is that this statement has not proven what it claims to have proven.
“The forensic standard INEC applies to its own communications will set the tone for every disputed claim in the 2027 cycle.
“If the bar is this low now, it will be lower when the pressure is higher. Publish the report. Name the expert. Show the work.” He said.