- AFRINIC’s financial stability is jeopardised by prolonged legal disputes and internal mismanagement.
- The organisation’s inability to conduct transparent elections exacerbates its governance crisis.
Counting costs, losing trust: The AFRINIC crisis unveiled
AFRINIC was founded with a clear purpose: to have African internet professionals manage local IP address allocations, safeguarding the continent’s independence and autonomy in global internet resources. Yet, since 2018, glaring management flaws began to emerge. millions of IP addresses were secretly allocated to offshore shell companies, with Policy Coordinator Ernest Byaruhanga allegedly manipulating records for illicit gain. Rather than pursuing Byaruhanga, AFRINIC shifted its legal focus toward Cloud Innovation (CI), a company with sufficient financial resources and legitimate, rigorously reviewed IP allocations.
CI’s IP applications were among the most thoroughly scrutinized across all five Regional Internet Registries globally, yet AFRINIC pursued years-long litigation against the company. The accusations lacked legal merit; prior court rulings had consistently favored CI. Nonetheless, AFRINIC continued to delay proceedings and rack up legal fees—strongly suggesting internal interests were driving these actions.
A further revelation came with the Letter of Engagement from October 2021, exposing AFRINIC’s internal problems in stark terms. The letter shows AFRINIC retained C&A Law to handle twelve cases, nine involving CI. C&A Law, led by Goinsamy Chinien—convicted of foreign exchange crimes—charged fees of USD 1,000 per hour with unlimited additional expenses. The actual legal work was carried out by lawyers, some of whom the courts had declared lacked any authority to represent AFRINIC. This arrangement demonstrates opaque legal and financial operations, hinting at potential personal enrichment.
Compounding the issue, some AFRINIC representatives were formally listed as directors despite having no legal authority, while the registrar of companies in Mauritius—responsible for maintaining these records—was Chinien’s wife. Such relationships raise serious questions about governance failure and potential conflicts of interest.
External interference further complicated matters. In 2025, ICANN attempted to restructure the Nomination Committee and intervene in board elections. The Supreme Court of Mauritius rejected these efforts, deeming ICANN “without locus standi.” This episode underscores how outside organisations meddling in AFRINIC affairs can create additional risk and disrupt governance.
AFRINIC had strayed far from its original mission. Limited funds were consumed in endless litigation, while service improvements, internet infrastructure development, and community support were neglected. Legal battles, meant as a last resort, became a routine operational tool, draining resources and eroding member trust.
Also Read: How AFRINIC’s board elections became a political battlefield
Also Read: Why AFRINIC’s fallout has global implications for internet governance
AFRINIC has deviated from its original mission
Equally alarming was the internal governance collapse. Boards and management lacked transparency and accountability; power struggles were rampant, with key decisions often controlled by a select few. Evidence suggests that some senior officials leveraged their positions for personal gain, treating institutional resources as political capital. An organisation intended to serve the community gradually became a playground for internal factions.
In this turmoil, Cloud Innovation and CEO Lu Heng were cast as scapegoats. Media narratives painted them as villains, masking AFRINIC’s own corruption and incompetence. Shifting blame became a tool for deflecting accountability.
The root of AFRINIC’s problems lies not with external actors but with its entrenched internal culture of corruption and power imbalance. A regional internet registry, meant to safeguard critical resources, instead became a “litigation machine,” wasting funds, fracturing the community, and sidelining dissenting voices. This behaviour fundamentally betrays Africa’s digital development interests.
Today, African internet users still face inadequate access, weak infrastructure, and high costs, while AFRINIC remains mired in internal strife and litigation. An institution that should represent Africa’s digital future is steadily undermining it. If uncorrected, this mismanagement threatens to seriously impede the continent’s internet development.
