Analysis of INEC’s Self-Exoneration Report Regarding Chairman Amupitan

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recently concluded an internal investigation into allegations that its Chairman, Professor Amupitan, posted partisan content on X (formerly Twitter) during the 2023 election cycle. The commission cleared the Chairman of all wrongdoing, a move critics have labeled as "self-exculpation" due to the lack of independent oversight in the investigative process.

The commission’s findings have faced significant scrutiny, with analysts pointing to five primary flaws in the report's logic and methodology.

Key Technical and Logical Inconsistencies

• Timestamp Discrepancies: INEC claimed the "victory is sure" reply was "physically impossible" because its timestamp predated the parent post. However, this conclusion fails to account for how X handles edited posts. When a parent post is edited, its timestamp updates, while existing replies maintain their original link to the initial version of the post.

• Account Recovery Evidence: Digital forensics conducted by independent citizens linked the contested account to a phone number and email address matching Amupitan’s official CV. Password recovery prompts consistently surfaced masked versions of these credentials, providing strong circumstantial evidence of ownership that the INEC report did not address.

• The "Wayback Machine" Fallacy: The report argued that the absence of the tweets from the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) proved they never existed. This ignores the technical reality that the Wayback Machine does not archive every low-traffic post in real-time, especially from accounts with low engagement at the time of posting.

• Interpretation of Account Changes: Following the discovery of the partisan tweets, the account’s name was changed and the profile was locked. INEC characterized this as "damage control by an impersonator." Critics argue this is a less plausible explanation than "panicky, retroactive distancing" by the original owner once the posts gained public scrutiny.

• The Proliferation of Fake Accounts: The report cited the recent emergence of parody accounts as proof of impersonation. However, evidence suggests no such duplicate accounts existed in September 2022—when the account was created—long before Amupitan's appointment to a high-profile position.

Concerns Over Legal Intimidation

The investigation concluded with a threat to prosecute those who publicized the allegations. Legal experts have characterized this move as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

Definition: A SLAPP is a legal manoeuvre intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.  Farooq Kperogi Slams INEC Over “Self-Acquittal” of Amupitan

When a public institution pivots from a lack of evidentiary transparency to the criminalization of its critics, it raises serious questions about the integrity of the findings and the protection of free speech.