Adewole Adebayo, the Social Democratic Party's 2023 presidential candidate, and tech expert Gbenga Sesan have voiced contrasting views on the authenticity of an X account allegedly belonging to INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan. The discussion took place on Channels Television's Sunday Politics. Adebayo acknowledged the potential for digital manipulation but said forensic analysis could trace ownership. He suggested either a court challenge or a legislative probe as viable paths to resolution. According to Adebayo, past political affiliation or voting history does not disqualify someone from serving as INEC chairman under current laws.
Adebayo emphasized that integrity becomes an issue if the account is proven to belong to Amupitan and he denies it. "In a simple matter like this, if you are already lying to the public and we are to trust you with determining election outcomes, then it becomes a question of integrity," he said. Meanwhile, Sesan challenged INEC's denial that Amupitan ever had an X account. He cited the Wayback Machine, stating it contains archived records linked to the handle 'joash amupitan'.
Sesan noted that social media account creation requires access to a verified email or phone number, implying such data could confirm ownership. He described INEC's denial as counterproductive, saying it fuels public skepticism. The controversy stems from claims that the account shared pro-All Progressives Congress content during the 2023 elections. INEC dismissed the allegations as a "malicious and coordinated campaign of calumny" aimed at tarnishing its reputation.
Joash Amupitan's alleged X account places INEC's credibility in the crosshairs, not because of the posts themselves, but because of the institution's flat denial in the face of retrievable digital traces. Gbenga Sesan's reference to the Wayback Machine showing a 'joash amupitan' handle undermines INEC's claim that no such account ever existed, suggesting the commission may be prioritizing damage control over transparency. When a constitutional body dismisses public queries with blanket denials, it risks appearing defensive rather than accountable.
The deeper issue lies in the erosion of public trust in institutions meant to operate above political fray. Adebayo's legalistic take—that past political behavior doesn't disqualify one from office—is technically sound but politically tone-deaf in a climate where perception shapes legitimacy. If the public believes the electoral umpire once engaged in partisan advocacy, the integrity of future election outcomes could be questioned regardless of legal technicalities. INEC's insistence on a "coordinated campaign of calumny" risks sounding like a reflexive shield against scrutiny.
Ordinary Nigerians, especially voters who participated in the 2023 elections, are left to wonder whether the body overseeing their votes is fully impartial. Young, tech-savvy citizens who rely on digital footprints to assess credibility may view INEC's response as out of touch. This incident amplifies the growing gap between institutional communication and digital reality.
A pattern is emerging: Nigerian institutions often respond to digital-era challenges with analog-era denials, refusing to engage forensic or technical discourse. This case fits squarely within that trend, where credibility is lost not by proven guilt, but by the refusal to subject claims to verifiable scrutiny.
