- Critics warn that CAIGA’s state-centred framework could weaken regional autonomy and erode Africa’s tradition of community-driven internet governance.
- Stakeholders argue that AFRINIC’s ongoing failures are being used to justify a political restructuring that risks placing governments in control of core technical functions.
A region at a turning point
The debate surrounding the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) is intensifying, revealing a continent caught between the collapse of its existing governance structures and the political ambitions of new actors. CAIGA, introduced under the leadership of Smart Africa, is promoted as a continental coordination mechanism. But many stakeholders fear it risks consolidating political power at the very moment Africa’s technical institutions are at their weakest.
For years, AFRINIC — the regional internet registry responsible for IP address management — has been plagued by lawsuits, governance paralysis, and leadership crises. These failures have created a vacuum, making it far easier for governments and continental bodies to step in. But critics argue that what is being presented as “reform” is, in practice, a shift toward a state-centric model that could undermine regional autonomy.
Also Read: CAIGA vs traditional internet governance models in Africa
Concerns over political control
Stakeholders across the internet governance ecosystem are raising alarms that CAIGA could entrench political oversight over technical infrastructure. Analysts note that Smart Africa’s membership is made up of governments and state-aligned actors, giving the architecture a fundamentally political centre of gravity.
An article from the Internet Governance Project highlights that CAIGA’s design “places governments in a structurally dominant role,” marking a sharp departure from the multistakeholder model traditionally used by regional internet registries. Sources argue this risks replacing community-driven oversight with ministerial authority — a shift critics say could jeopardise operational independence.
Also Read: How CAIGA could change IP address management in Africa
A crisis of trust in institutions
Underlying the backlash is a broader loss of confidence in AFRINIC itself. Some African stakeholders believe AFRINIC has failed so profoundly that a continent-wide reset is unavoidable. Others, however, warn that CAIGA exploits AFRINIC’s vulnerability to expand state power rather than rebuild community governance.
The fear is simple: if CAIGA becomes the de facto oversight mechanism, Africa’s internet governance will move from technical stewardship to political administration. That transition, observers warn, could reshape not only how Africa manages its internet resources but who ultimately controls them.
