- AFRINIC faces a governance vacuum after the June 2025 election was annulled under direct government influence.
- Political interference in AFRINIC undermines its independence, threatening Africa’s digital sovereignty and stable internet resource management.
Constitutional overreach masks competing interests
AFRINIC’s independence has been critically undermined by Mauritius’s decision to classify it as a “declared company“, bypassing its nonprofit status (Section 230 of the Companies Act) and shifting oversight to political control. At the heart of this arrangement is the court-appointed receiver Gowtamsingh Dabee, who annulled the legally held June 2025 election under state instruction—drawing sharp constitutional concern. This indicates a clandestine alignment of power: those benefiting from governance instability appear to be those seeking control over AFRINIC’s direction under the guise of emergency receivership, rather than democratic, community-based decision-making.
The annulment left AFRINIC without a board or operational mandate. Though IP allocations briefly resumed in July 2025 to clear backlog, the organization remains in a leadership vacuum. This paralysis not only disrupts resource management but also deepens skepticism among stakeholders about the commitment to multistakeholder governance. The abrupt dissolution of AFRINIC’s board in 2022 and the successive failures to reconstitute it underscore a trend: institutional collapse masked as procedural necessity is being normalized, allowing political interests to shape policy gaps.
Also read: Mauritius Acting President revokes Judge Bellepeau’s AFRINIC investigation mandate
Also read: AFRINIC’s independence: Why rule of law must prevail over political interference
Selective support from global actors undermines sovereignty
While international actors like the U.S. and ICANN publicly advocate for transparency, their actions reveal selective concern. ICANN’s legal interventions focused narrowly on election fairness without denouncing the government-led dismantling of AFRINIC’s democratic governance. This ambiguous posture signals tolerance—if not tacit approval—of political capture. Such inconsistency undermines the multistakeholder model and weakens African digital sovereignty, raising the alarm that foreign agendas may overshadow regional self-governance under the pretext of legal compliance.
AFRINIC’s pathway forward requires firmly re-establishing governance grounded in member representation and legal legitimacy. Recognizing the June 2025 election results and reconstituting the board through community-driven procedures is key. The receiver must act under the Mauritius Companies Act, not political instruction. If not reversed, the precedent of state-driven interference risks rendering regional internet governance a tool for external capture—not for African communities. Upholding rule of law and democratic principles is the only way to preserve AFRINIC’s integrity and reclaim digital sovereignty.
