Tweets, Trust and the Tribunal of Public Opinion: Inside Nigeria’s INEC Credibility Storm
By Matthew Eloyi
In a country where elections are often contested long after ballots are cast, credibility is everything. Today, Nigeria finds itself confronting a familiar but deeply troubling question: Can the umpire truly be trusted?
The controversy surrounding the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, has reignited that question with renewed urgency. At the centre of the storm are resurfaced social media posts (alleged old tweets) that appear to show partisan sympathy for the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. What began as a digital discovery has now escalated into a national debate about neutrality, perception, and the fragile foundation of electoral trust.
The crisis erupted when archived posts linked to an account bearing Amupitan’s name surfaced online. The tweets, reportedly made during the heated 2023 general elections (before his appointment) paint a picture that critics say is incompatible with the neutrality expected of an electoral umpire.
Among the most cited examples is a response to a pro-APC post declaring electoral success, to which the account allegedly replied, “Victory is sure.”
In another instance, the account reportedly used language critical of supporters of opposition candidate Peter Obi, further fueling perceptions of bias.
More symbolically, a tweet responding with the word “Asiwaju”, a well-known political slogan associated with President Tinubu, has been interpreted by many as a clear signal of allegiance.
For critics, these are not harmless expressions of private opinion. They are political footprints, digital breadcrumbs that, once uncovered, cast long shadows over the integrity of the office Amupitan now occupies.
Nigerians, particularly on social media, have reacted with intensity. The controversy has triggered calls for resignation, with opposition supporters and civil society voices arguing that the credibility of INEC is at stake.
The reaction has not been merely partisan; it has been existential. For many Nigerians, elections are already burdened by skepticism. The idea that the electoral referee may have once publicly cheered for one of the players only deepens mistrust.
This wave of public outrage has been amplified by what appears to be a coordinated online campaign demanding accountability.
To a generation that increasingly relies on digital transparency, past online behavior is no longer buried; it is evidence.
Faced with mounting pressure, both INEC and the Chairman have strongly denied the allegations.
In an official response, INEC described the claims as “false and malicious,” insisting that the tweets were fabricated and part of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Commission.
More strikingly, Amupitan, through his spokesperson, stated that he has never operated any personal account on X (formerly Twitter) and has never engaged in partisan commentary.
The Commission has gone a step further, announcing collaboration with security agencies and cyber-intelligence units to investigate the origin of the posts and identify those behind what it calls “identity theft and misinformation.”
There are also indications that forensic experts may be engaged to verify the authenticity of the account and its digital history.
In essence, INEC’s defense rests on a critical claim: the tweets are not just misleading; they are fraudulent.
Yet, even as denials mount, the controversy exposes a deeper institutional dilemma, one that goes beyond whether the tweets are real or fake.
In electoral governance, perception is as powerful as reality.
Even if the account were proven to be fake, the mere plausibility of the allegations reveals a vulnerability in public trust. And if, on the other hand, the tweets are authentic, the implications become even more severe, raising questions about ethical judgment, transparency, and the standards required of those who oversee elections.
Nigeria has faced similar controversies before. Allegations of partisanship within electoral bodies are not new. But what makes this episode different is the nature of the evidence: digital, traceable, and widely accessible.
A key argument in defense of the INEC Chairman is that individuals are entitled to personal political views, especially before assuming public office. This is both legally and morally valid.
However, the office of INEC Chairman demands something higher: not just neutrality, but the appearance of neutrality.
An electoral umpire must be above suspicion, not only in action but in perception. This is because elections are not just administrative exercises; they are acts of collective trust.
When that trust is weakened, even credible elections risk rejection.
Ultimately, this controversy is bigger than one man. It is a test of Nigeria’s democratic maturity.
How should institutions respond to allegations that strike at their legitimacy?
How transparent should public officials be about their past? And how can trust be rebuilt in an era where digital footprints are permanent?
INEC’s decision to investigate the matter is a step in the right direction. But beyond investigations, what Nigerians seek is reassurance (clear, credible, and convincing).
The unfolding drama around Professor Amupitan’s alleged tweets is a reminder that in democracy, credibility is currency.
Institutions like INEC do not merely conduct elections; they embody the will of the people. And that responsibility demands not just competence, but unimpeachable integrity.
Whether this controversy fades or escalates will depend on the evidence that emerges in the coming days. But one thing is certain: in Nigeria’s democracy, trust, once shaken, is not easily restored.
And for INEC, the task now is not just to defend its Chairman, but to defend the very idea that elections in Nigeria can be free, fair, and beyond reproach.