- Members argue that only recognition of the June 2025 election result can restore confidence in AFRINIC’s governance.
- The September re-run is criticised as unlawful, with claims it violated bylaws and disenfranchised members.
Background to AFRINIC governance challenges
The African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the Regional Internet Registry for Africa, is responsible for the allocation and the management of internet number resources across the continent. The governance framework rests on its constitution and bylaws, which detail how elections must be conducted, how proxy votes are managed, and how disputes are to be resolved.
In June 2025, AFRINIC conducted its scheduled board election. That vote was carried out under the existing constitutional framework and included proxy voting, a practice explicitly recognised in AFRINIC’s bylaws. However, controversy soon followed when a single proxy vote was challenged.
Such a challenge should have been addressed through a transparent investigation and targeted remediation rather than by discarding the entire election outcome.
Also read: AFRINIC election results face legitimacy challenge over governance breaches
Also read: AFRINIC election: Voter fraud uncovered as ECom member threatens to resign
June 2025 election at the centre of dispute
Supporters of the June result point out that the election was completed according to established rules. They argue that any flaws—such as the contested proxy—should be corrected through AFRINIC’s dispute resolution mechanisms. There is only one path to restoring confidence: recognising the results of the June 2025 election.
That election, whatever its flaws, was conducted within the framework of AFRINIC’s constitution. The dispute over a single proxy vote should have been resolved through investigation and remediation – not through annulment and wholesale reinvention of the process.
The push for annulment led to AFRINIC organising a new election in September. Critics maintain that this re-run was conducted outside the constitution, breaching multiple bylaws and disenfranchising legitimate members. In their view, the September process compounded the governance crisis instead of solving it.
Also read: AFRINIC’s September elections were a flagrant violation of its own bylaws
Also read: Why AFRINIC’s election security needs stronger legal guarantees in Mauritius
How dispute resolution mechanisms work
Dispute resolution is designed to be handled through established committees or panels, which can review complaints, investigate proxy irregularities, and issue remedies ranging from correction of records to targeted sanctions.
The bylaws set out strict conditions for proxy voting, including requirements for written authorisation, eligibility checks, and timely submission. If a proxy is improperly cast, the mechanism envisages verification and removal, not invalidation of the whole election. This structure exists precisely to protect member rights and to prevent governance paralysis.
By contrast, the September vote bypassed these protections. Members have alleged that notice requirements were not respected, proxy rules were ignored, and a significant number of participants were denied their right to vote.
The way forward
For AFRINIC, restoring confidence requires reaffirming the principle that governance must be bound by its constitution. The existing dispute resolution mechanisms were designed to manage limited irregularities, not to enable wholesale disregard of results.
Recognising the June election outcome, while applying targeted remedies for any proven proxy irregularity, is increasingly seen as the only path that aligns with the constitution, protects member rights, and rebuilds trust. Anything less risks prolonging uncertainty and weakening Africa’s voice in global internet governance.
