Cybersecurity Expert Challenges Integrity of Forensic Report Clearing INEC Chairman

Cybersecurity expert Charles Awuzie slams INEC’s forensic report clearing its chairman, calling it "evidence-light" and lacking technical depth.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 21, 2026, 8:33 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from LEADERSHIP

Technical Scrutiny of High Profile Exoneration

A fresh wave of skepticism has hit the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) following the release of a forensic report clearing its Chairman, Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, of links to a viral social media post. Charles Awuzie, a Johannesburg based cybersecurity expert, has characterized the commission's findings as a "reputational defense document" rather than a neutral technical analysis. Awuzie’s public critique on Tuesday suggests that the investigation failed to meet the rigorous standards required for digital forensics, particularly in a case with significant political implications.

Deep Forensics Versus Surface Level Intelligence

The core of the dispute rests on the methodology used by INEC’s investigative team. Awuzie argues that the report relied almost exclusively on Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)—information that is publicly observable—while ignoring "deep forensics." According to the expert, a credible analysis of an X (formerly Twitter) post must involve internal platform logs, IP login histories, session tokens, and device fingerprints. Without this data, he claims, the report is "conclusion heavy but evidence light," providing a narrative that lacks a verifiable technical audit trail.

Absence of Industry Standard Forensic Tools

Critique of the report also highlighted the lack of globally recognized forensic methodologies. Awuzie pointed out that the findings did not present hash values, audit trails, or evidence of using specialized tools such as Maltego or Cellebrite. Furthermore, the report failed to detail its data acquisition processes, which is a standard requirement for findings to be admissible or credible in a legal setting. By omitting these technical specifics, the document is seen by some experts as weaponizing partial truths while leaving significant exploitable gaps in the chairman's defense.