The only entity that can provide unimpeachable evidence on the true ownership of the X account at the heart of the controversy surrounding INEC Chairman, Joash Amupitan is X (formerly known as Twitter).
This is the conclusion of a weeks-long research into the issue presented today to the media by Digital Africa Research and Safety Lab (DigiAfricaLab).
The controversy began on April 10, 2026, when viral social media posts alleged that the INEC Chairman tweeted a partisan comment — “Victory is sure” — in response to another user, who had announced the victory of an APC candidate.
Amidst ccalls for Amupitan’s resignation on alleged grounds of impartiality, several groups – including INEC – have posted what they said was evidence in support of either of the two sides.
However, in its report entitled: Verification, Evidence, and Public Trust, DigiAfricaLab urged Nigerians not to be swayed by analysis conducted through Grok or other such apps, saying they only aggregate and sum up materials that are already in public domain and lack the ability to provide hidden materials.
“Resolving this matter requires a shift away from speculation, and from conclusions that extend beyond what the available evidence can support, towards lawful and transparent, evidence-based processes,’ DigiAfricaLab said in the report. “Efforts to obtain clarity should prioritise access to verifiable platform-level data through appropriate legal channels. At the same time, responses must remain consistent with due process and the rights of individuals, and should avoid actions that may create fear, suppress legitimate expression, or introduce disproportionate or opaque enforcement responses that undermine public confidence in the rule of law.”
The organisation also said it was exploring lawful pathways to obtain the platform-level data required to determine ownership and control of the accounts in question, where necessary, through appropriate legal processes.
” DigiAfricaLab’s role is not to speculate, but to ensure that questions of public interest are resolved through verifiable evidence. Until such evidence is obtained, DigiAfricaLab will not draw conclusions about this specific case,” it said.
Read the report in full:
Verification, Evidence, and Public Trust
Digital Africa Research and Safety Lab (DigiAfricaLab) has observed the ongoing public debate regarding two Twitter (also known as X) accounts alleged to be linked to the Chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, including claims of partisanship and calls for resignation.
This is a moment that requires restraint and, above all, verification grounded in evidence.
Impersonation is not new within Nigeria’s digital environment.
Over the past decade, DigiAfricaLab has documented hundreds of impersonation and malicious parody accounts across platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, including cases involving activists, public officials, institutions, and previous INEC leadership. Our monitoring shows that accounts are frequently renamed, repurposed, and reused across moments of public attention.
DigiAfricaLab has also documented cases where profile labels such as “parody”, “fan account”, “faux” or similar descriptors are added or modified over time, particularly after accounts have attracted scrutiny. In many instances, individuals are unaware that they are being impersonated.
It is also important to note that while a Twitter account’s numerical identifier (Twitter ID) remains constant, its displayed identity, name, and content can change over time. However, establishing ownership or control of an account requires access to platform-level data.
DigiAfricaLab therefore notes, with concern, the growing reliance on output from AI tools such as Grok, which are increasingly circulated as investigative findings or factual conclusions without independent verification. Grok simply aggregates publicly available information. It does not have access to platform-level data, and often presents inaccurate and self-contradictory information with confidence.
DigiAfricaLab has also reviewed the recently circulated forensic report by DIHIL, and INEC’s subsequent public statement.
While efforts to investigate the matter are welcome, it is important to distinguish between: the absence of a verified linkage between an individual and an account, and
conclusive proof of impersonation or fabrication.
These are not the same.
Certain claims presented as definitive findings, including conclusions drawn from the absence of Wayback Machine records, current non-appearance of content on a platform, or inferred metadata, require careful scrutiny. Such indicators may raise questions, but on their own do not provide conclusive forensic proof of authorship, control, or historical activity.
Open-source and publicly inferred data can support investigation, but cannot substitute for platform-verified records when determining account ownership or control.
DigiAfricaLab emphasises that claims presented as “forensic” should meet clear standards of methodological transparency, evidentiary sufficiency, and reproducibility.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 General Elections, the credibility and independence of INEC, and of its leadership, are foundational to public trust in the electoral process. Claims that are not grounded in verifiable evidence, regardless of direction, carry risks that can erode that trust.
At this stage, DigiAfricaLab has not obtained sufficient evidence to determine whether the accounts in question (Twitter ID: 1567086242164101120 and Twitter ID: 2042619883771338752) were operated by the individual concerned or by a third party.
It is therefore essential to avoid two errors:
prematurely attributing the accounts to the individual concerned, and prematurely concluding that the accounts are an impersonation.
Resolving this matter requires a shift away from speculation, and from conclusions that extend beyond what the available evidence can support, towards lawful and transparent, evidence-based processes.
Efforts to obtain clarity should prioritise access to verifiable platform-level data through appropriate legal channels. At the same time, responses must remain consistent with due process and the rights of individuals, and should avoid actions that may create fear, suppress legitimate expression, or introduce disproportionate or opaque enforcement responses that undermine public confidence in the rule of law.
This moment also highlights the need for clearer institutional protocols for handling contested digital evidence, including defined thresholds for public attribution and independent verification.
These considerations have immediate implications for how this issue is reported, analysed, and discussed in the public domain.
Guidance for Media, Analysts, and Public Commentary
In reporting and public discussion of this matter, DigiAfricaLab emphasises the following:
*Claims of account ownership or impersonation should not be treated as established fact without platform-level verification
*Absence of evidence (including non-existent Wayback Machine archives or current non-visibility of content) should not be presented as definitive proof
*Outputs from AI tools should not be relied upon as forensic conclusions
*Conclusions should not extend beyond what the available evidence can support
*Accuracy, not speed or amplification, should guide public communication in matters with significant implications for institutional trust.
DigiAfricaLab encourages:
*Media organisations to prioritise verification over repetition, and to avoid presenting unverified or inferential claims as established fact
*Public commentators to exercise caution in amplifying claims that have not been supported by platform-level evidence
*Civil society actors to support efforts to obtain lawful and transparent access to relevant platform data
*X Corp to cooperate transparently with legitimate requests for information in matters of public interest and national security.
DigiAfricaLab is exploring lawful pathways to obtain the platform-level data required to determine ownership and control of the accounts in question, where necessary, through appropriate legal processes.
This remains the central question:
What evidence exists to establish who controlled @JoashAmupitan (Twitter ID: 1567086242164101120, created September 2022) and @JoashAmupitan (Twitter ID: 2042619883771338752, created April 2026), and when?
Only X Corp can provide a definitive answer.
DigiAfricaLab is convening an independent expert review of the available evidence in this case, with a view to strengthening clarity on what can and cannot be established.
DigiAfricaLab’s role is not to speculate, but to ensure that questions of public interest are resolved through verifiable evidence. Until such evidence is obtained, DigiAfricaLab will not draw conclusions about this specific case.
About DigiAfricaLab
Digital Africa Research and Safety Lab (DigiAfricaLab) identifies, prevents, and mitigates digital threats to civic participation and elections.
Nigeria operations are implemented through a registered non-profit entity.
