Our Reporter, Abuja
Political commentator and professor of journalism, Farooq Kperogi, has dismissed the Independent National Electoral Commission’s report pupportedly clearing its chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, of allegations linking him to partisan social media activity in support of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, describing the exercise as a “farcical self-acquittal.”
Reacting to INEC’s internal forensic review, which reportedly found no evidence that Amupitan operated an X account that posted pro-Tinubu messages during the 2023 election cycle, Kperogi argued that the commission merely investigated itself and predictably absolved its chairman.
In a statement titled, “INEC’s Farcical Self-Acquittal of Amupitan,” Kperogi said the commission acted as “judge, prosecutor and defense,” accusing it of engaging in self-exoneration rather than a credible investigation.
“How can you find yourself guilty in a court you established, where both the prosecution and the defense lawyers are your appointed minions and you are the judge?” he queried.
Kperogi faulted the report on five grounds, beginning with what he described as INEC’s flawed reliance on timestamp discrepancies to dismiss the allegation.
According to him, the commission ignored the possibility that the original X post had been edited, which could have altered the timestamp and explained why the disputed reply appeared to predate the parent post.
“First, the claim that the timestamp of the “victory is sure” reply appeared earlier than the parent post, and therefore that it is “physically impossible,” ignores the fact that the parent post was edited, which altered its timestamp. The reply reflected the timestamp of the earlier version of the post before it was edited,” the scholar insisted.
He also cited what he called independent, citizen-led recovery efforts which allegedly linked the contested X account to contact details associated with Amupitan’s official credentials, insisting such findings amounted to circumstantial evidence the commission failed to address.
Kperogi further challenged INEC’s claim that the absence of the account from the Wayback Machine archive before April 2026 undermined the allegation, arguing that the archive does not capture every low-traffic social media activity in real time.
“The Wayback Machine is known not to archive low-traffic social media posts. Amupitan was an unknown quantity in 2023, so his reply attracted no eyeballs, which means the Wayback Machine had no reason to archive it,” Kperogi said.
He also rejected the commission’s suggestion that changes made to the account after the controversy erupted — including renaming the handle and locking it from public view — were the actions of an impersonator.
Rather, he argued such actions were more plausibly an attempt by the original operator to distance himself after public scrutiny intensified.
“Fourth, the self-exoneration tries to be clever by half by inverting the strongest circumstantial evidence that Amupitan tried to cover his tracks after he was caught pants down. The report said the change of the account’s name and locking it from public view after the partisan tweets were discovered was damage control by an impersonator. Hahaha! That was funny. These INEC “forensic experts” would have better success as comedians than as forensic analysts.
“Anyone who is not a silly comedian knows that the most plausible interpretation of that action is that it is panicky, retroactive distancing by the original operator once scrutiny intensified,” he asserted.
Kperogi additionally dismissed INEC’s argument that the emergence of multiple fake accounts in Amupitan’s name after his appointment weakened the authenticity of the disputed account, insisting the account in question predated his emergence as INEC chairman.
Beyond disputing the technical findings, the columnist raised concerns over what he described as the commission’s threat to arrest or prosecute individuals who exposed the alleged tweets.
He likened such threats to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, warning that criminalizing critics could signal an attempt to suppress scrutiny rather than address legitimate concerns.
“When an institution under scrutiny moves quickly from denial to criminalization, it usually signals an attempt to paper over guilt,” he said.
INEC had maintained that its forensic examination cleared Amupitan of wrongdoing and dismissed claims linking him to the controversial posts. However, Kperogi insisted the commission’s report failed to present credible evidence to support its conclusions.
