- CAIGA’s policy blueprint promises reform but critics argue it introduces political dominance, weakens community authority and risks destabilising Africa’s internet governance.
- Stakeholders fear CAIGA may formalise state control, undermine regional autonomy and repeat AFRINIC’s failures rather than resolve them.
A proposal framed as reform—but built on political foundations
The Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) has been marketed by Smart Africa as a structural solution to AFRINIC’s collapse. But a closer look at its proposed policy framework reveals a model that replaces community-driven oversight with state-led authority — a sharp departure from global internet governance norms.
Rather than correcting AFRINIC’s well-documented governance failures — including opaque elections, weak accountability measures and years of mismanagement — CAIGA’s proposal shifts power upwards to governments. The framework introduces political endorsement mechanisms, a new governance authority with continent-wide oversight, and a Permanent Secretary operating outside traditional community checks.
Far from a needed reset, critics argue CAIGA risks creating a politicised parallel hierarchy, one that has little to do with strengthening technical operations and everything to do with asserting governmental control over internet resources.
Also Read: CAIGA initiative stirs debate, businesses must weigh internet governance changes in Africa
CAIGA’s policy ideas raise more concerns than confidence
The details of CAIGA’s framework remain vague, with little transparency about how policies would be drafted, ratified or enforced. The lack of clarity alone alarms stakeholders — but the mechanisms that are clear are even more troubling.
By shifting policymaking power to central bodies dominated by political actors, CAIGA sidelines operators, civil society, and the technical community. This contradicts the bottom-up, multistakeholder model that has underpinned stable internet governance for decades.
Critics warn that CAIGA may replicate AFRINIC’s worst problems — lack of accountability, capture risks and governance opacity — but on a much larger scale. Instead of preventing fragmentation, CAIGA could deepen it by fostering mistrust and enabling political interference in technical resource management.
Also Read: Africa faces unresolved governance challenges before any CAIGA model can take shape
ICANN’s involvement magnifies distrust and raises double-standards concerns
ICANN’s funding and participation in Smart Africa’s blueprint has only intensified criticism. The organisation claims neutrality, yet its actions directly support a governance model that would allow governments to override community decision-making.
Many ask a simple question: Would ICANN support a political architecture like CAIGA in Europe, North America or Asia? If not, Africa’s treatment looks less like partnership and more like a double standard — one that threatens regional autonomy and erodes trust in ICANN’s global role.
Until CAIGA undergoes transparent scrutiny and commits to genuine multistakeholder governance, its policy framework appears less like reform and more like consolidation of political power.
