X Account: Come on INEC, this defence of your chairman looks eerily dubious

I have tried to stay out of this INEC issue but this INEC's statement asserting that the @joashamupitan account was never operated by Prof. Joash Amupitan and that the screenshots are fabricated, deserves a careful reading.

First, to be fair: impersonation of Nigerian public… https://t.co/qkkop1jb1x

— Akíntúndé Babátúndé (@olorunwababs) April 20, 2026

I have tried to stay out of this INEC issue but this INEC’s statement asserting that the
@joashamupitan account was never operated by Prof. Joash Amupitan and that the screenshots are fabricated, deserves a careful reading.

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 🚩 🚩.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The data breach evidence is dismissed selectively. 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?
8. 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 this 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.