INEC’s Self-Investigation of Chairman Amupitan: A Critical Analysis of Flawed Forensics and Institutional Self-Exoneration
By Farooq Kperogi
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recently concluded an internal investigation into its Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu Amupitan, regarding allegations of partisan social media activity during the 2023 election cycle. The commission’s report, which exonerated him, represents a classic case of institutional self-exoneration—a process where an entity investigates itself and predictably finds no wrongdoing. This analysis deconstructs the INEC investigation’s methodology and highlights the profound flaws that render its conclusions unreliable and damaging to public trust in Nigeria’s electoral governance.
The Inherent Conflict of a Self-Administered Investigation
The fundamental flaw is structural. Asking INEC to impartially investigate its own chairman is akin to a student grading their own exam. The investigation lacks the basic tenets of independence: an impartial judge, a rigorous prosecution, and a defense free from institutional pressure. When the investigator and the subject are part of the same hierarchy, the outcome is often preordained. This process, known as self-exculpation or self-absolution, typically obscures facts behind technical jargon without providing substantive, verifiable evidence.
Deconstructing INEC’s Forensic Flaws: A Five-Point Rebuttal
INEC’s report hinges on several forensic claims that collapse under scrutiny.
1. The Misleading Timestamp Argument
INEC claimed a “victory is sure” reply tweet appeared earlier than the parent post, making it “physically impossible.” This argument ignores a basic function of social media platforms: post-editing alters timestamps. The reply likely captured the timestamp of the original, unedited version of the parent post. A competent forensic analysis would have sought metadata or platform logs to trace the edit history, not taken the public-facing timestamp at face value.
2. Circumstantial Evidence from Account Recovery
Independent efforts to recover the contested X (formerly Twitter) account consistently surfaced a phone number and email address linked to Amupitan’s official curriculum vitae. While not definitive proof, this is strong circumstantial evidence of account linkage. In any credible investigation, such a lead would be pursued—for instance, by subpoenaing platform data to confirm ownership—not dismissed.
3. The Archive Gap Fallacy
The report’s reliance on the absence of an archive trace on the Wayback Machine before April 2023 is a logical fallacy. The Wayback Machine does not capture every webpage or social media profile in real-time; it prioritizes sites with traffic. In 2023, Amupitan was not a public figure. His tweet, likely having minimal engagement, would naturally escape archiving. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This claim demonstrates a misunderstanding of how web archiving tools work.
4. Misreading the Cover-Up: Account Renaming and Locking
Perhaps the most telling misstep is INEC’s interpretation of the account being renamed and locked from public view after the partisan tweets were discovered. The report absurdly suggests this was “damage control by an impersonator.” The far more plausible explanation, consistent with human behavior, is that it was a panicked, retroactive attempt by the account owner to distance themselves once public scrutiny intensified. An impersonator gaining attention would typically amplify the impersonation, not hide it.
5. Conflating Pre- and Post-Appointment Context
INEC notes that multiple fake accounts appeared after Amupitan’s high-profile appointment. This is irrelevant to assessing the authenticity of the specific account created in September 2022, when he was a relatively obscure academic. The existence of later fakes does not disprove the authenticity of an earlier, genuine account. This conflation muddies the investigative timeline.
The Chilling Threat: SLAPP Tactics and Intimidation
Most alarmingly, INEC’s report threatened to arrest and prosecute those who made the allegations. This introduces a frighteningly authoritarian element into the discourse. This tactic is known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPPs are frivolous legal actions not designed to win in court, but to intimidate critics, drain their resources, and silence public scrutiny through the fear of legal retribution.
In this context, a SLAPP threat is particularly egregious because it seeks to criminalize legitimate inquiry into a matter of profound public interest—the impartiality of the nation’s chief electoral umpire. When an institution shifts rapidly from denial to the criminalization of its critics, it often signals a desperate attempt to obscure guilt and shield itself from accountability.
Conclusion: The Erosion of Institutional Credibility
INEC’s self-investigation fails the tests of logic, forensic rigor, and procedural fairness. By presenting a series of technically weak arguments and resorting to intimidation, the commission has done more than just acquit its chairman; it has further eroded the already fragile public confidence in its neutrality. For an institution tasked with safeguarding democracy, the appearance of impartiality is as crucial as impartiality itself. This episode of self-exoneration damages both.
Source: Adapted and expanded from original reporting. For the initial report, visit New Diplomat.