- Court confirms local law overrides global pressure in AFRINIC crisis
- One disputed proxy sparked wide annulment, raising governance concerns
Disputed proxy vote sparks wider conflict over AFRINIC election integrity and regional governance authority
In 2025, AFRINIC, the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Africa, became the centre of a growing governance crisis. What started as a technical disagreement over one disputed proxy vote quickly escalated into a broad struggle over jurisdiction, power, and influence—both within Africa and from global internet actors. At the heart of the issue lies not only election procedure but also the geopolitical tension between regional self-determination and external intervention.
The controversy began during the 2025 AFRINIC Board elections. Hundreds of members submitted proxy votes using the process laid out in the bylaws. These proxies were vetted and deemed valid by AFRINIC’s legal and election teams. However, after one offical raised concerns about a single proxy, AFRINIC’s management suddenly suspended the election. This pause came after ballots had already been cast and ballot boxes sealed. Staff were later seen removing boxes from the election site without approval from the Election Committee. Eyewitness accounts and photographs confirmed these removals. Voters, including candidates, were reportedly denied access.
Also read: AFRINIC’s election collapse: Courts overruled, ICANN intrudes
Also read: Why ICANN’s involvement in AFRINIC election raises red flags
Mauritian court affirms local authority as ICANN’s comments spark sovereignty concerns
The stated reason for the suspension—one questionable proxy—did not justify the drastic step of annulling the entire election. The courts of Mauritius, where AFRINIC is registered, agreed. They ruled that cancelling the entire election because of one alleged issue was disproportionate. The court found no legal basis to ignore hundreds of valid proxies. Instead, it declared the vote invalid due to procedural irregularities committed by staff during the pause. Importantly, the proxies themselves were not found fraudulent. The court’s position was clear: cancelling an election based on one “phantom vote” was unjustified and damaged member trust.
Yet the story did not end there. ICANN, the global body overseeing domain names and IP number allocation, issued several statements about the crisis. It called for “fair elections,” demanded a receiver’s communique, and made public comments on AFRINIC’s legal proceedings. Though ICANN holds no formal legal power over AFRINIC’s operations, its influence as a global actor in internet governance is significant. ICANN’s commentary during an active court process raised questions about its role.
AFRINIC operates under Mauritian law. Its corporate governance structure, membership rules, and voting procedures are bound by local regulations. ICANN, while tasked with coordinating IP address space, cannot override the legal framework that binds an RIR like AFRINIC. This fact was emphasised by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, which ordered a re-run of the election and gave full oversight to a receiver.
This power struggle reveals deeper geopolitical forces. Some African stakeholders argue that ICANN’s comments during the crisis represented indirect interference in sovereign legal matters. They question why a global institution would choose to publicly intervene in a local governance process, particularly when the legal system had already begun corrective action.
For many in Africa’s internet community, the AFRINIC election issue is not just about ballots. It is about agency. AFRINIC is Africa’s only RIR. Its independence and legal accountability matter deeply to those who rely on it to allocate IP addresses, especially as the region struggles to meet IPv4 demand and expand IPv6 use. When an external body like ICANN makes strong public statements during legal proceedings, it can appear to disregard African legal systems and institutions.
Also read: The story of AFRINIC: How Africa’s internet ideal was destroyed from within
Also read: AFRINIC staff violated obligations during 2025 election
Fresh vote will test AFRINIC’s autonomy and global respect for local law
The upcoming court-supervised election, now set for 30 September, will be more than a vote. It will be a referendum on governance legitimacy. The election’s handling—particularly the treatment of proxies and communication with members—will test whether regional bodies can truly act autonomously, even while operating in a globally coordinated system.
The one disputed proxy vote should have triggered a review, not a halt. Instead, the reaction led to the invalidation of hundreds of legitimate votes, and the nullification of an entire election process. The blow to trust was avoidable. With renewed legal oversight and greater transparency, AFRINIC has a chance to restore credibility.
But broader questions remain. Will global institutions like ICANN learn to respect the boundaries of national legal authority? Or will geopolitical frictions continue to surface in the technical layers of internet infrastructure? For now, the AFRINIC case stands as a cautionary tale about power, legitimacy, and the delicate balance of global and local internet governance.
