Forensic Report On INEC Chairman Sparks Credibility Debate Among Cybersecurity Experts

A fresh controversy has erupted over the forensic report that cleared the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, of alleged links to a viral X (formerly Twitter) post, as a cybersecurity expert publicly questioned the credibility and depth of the investigation.

In a strongly worded message addressed to INEC via his Facebook account on Tuesday ,Charles Awuzie, who identified himself as the leader of a top cybersecurity team based in Johannesburg,South Africa, dismissed the commission’s report as a “reputational defence document” rather than a rigorous and neutral forensic analysis.

Awuzie argued that the report relied heavily on surface-level Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), rather than what he described as “deep forensics” involving critical technical data such as internal platform logs, IP login history, device fingerprints, session tokens, and email verification records.

According to him, a credible forensic investigation should go beyond observable anomalies and avoid jumping to definitive conclusions without presenting verifiable technical evidence.

“The report is conclusion-heavy but evidence-light,” he stated, adding that it failed to disclose essential components such as the tools, methodologies, and data acquisition processes used in arriving at its findings.

He further criticised the absence of globally recognised forensic tools and techniques,such as Maltego, Cellebrite, API log analysis, or blockchain-style linkage systems,arguing that no hash values, audit trails, or verifiable datasets were presented to support the conclusions reached.

Awuzie noted that while the report appeared “structurally coherent and directionally correct,” it ultimately fell short of professional forensic standards, describing it as a document that “weaponises partial truths while leaving exploitable gaps.”

He warned that such gaps could undermine the credibility of the report, particularly in a legal setting.

“You can’t conclude without proving. That’s the major sin of this report,little was proven but much more was concluded,” he said.

The cybersecurity expert also pointed out what he described as a missed opportunity by INEC’s investigators to strengthen the chairman’s defence.

He suggested that a more robust approach would have involved proving that the alleged post never existed within the original X conversation thread or subjecting the viral screenshot to advanced forensic tests, such as AI-generated image detection.

Despite his criticism, Awuzie maintained that the INEC chairman could still be innocent, but warned that the nature of the report might complicate public perception and weaken institutional trust.

“The INEC Chairman could be innocent,but this report could complicate things for him,” he noted.

Awuzie also raised broader concerns about the lack of neutrality in high-stakes public investigations in Nigeria, arguing that professional objectivity is often sacrificed in favour of predetermined narratives.

The development adds a new layer to the ongoing debate surrounding the alleged social media post and INEC’s response, with analysts warning that questions over the integrity of the forensic process could have wider implications for public confidence in electoral institutions.

As of press time, INEC has not issued an official response to Awuzie’s claims.