- Smart Africa’s governance initiatives risk centralising power while failing to deliver tangible benefits for ordinary Africans
- ICANN and CAIGA’s growing influence threatens Africa’s bottom-up internet governance and regional autonomy
What happened: How Smart Africa, CAIGA and ICANN reshaped the crisis
Smart Africa has positioned itself as a continental driver of digital transformation, promising to accelerate connectivity, harmonise policy frameworks and unlock Africa’s digital economy. Through high-level summits, ministerial communiqués and partnerships with global technology and governance bodies, the alliance claims to be shaping Africa’s digital future.
However, as Africa’s internet governance ecosystem has entered a period of deep instability following the collapse of AFRINIC, Smart Africa has increasingly stepped beyond coordination into institution-building and political intervention. Its endorsement of the proposed Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture, or CAIGA, marked a decisive shift away from Africa’s long-standing bottom-up governance traditions.
CAIGA was introduced as a temporary solution to the AFRINIC crisis, yet it was developed outside AFRINIC’s established policy processes and without a clear mandate from the regional internet community. Instead of restoring trust, it created a parallel governance structure that risks sidelining members, operators and civil society in favour of state-aligned and intergovernmental influence.
At the same time, ICANN has played an increasingly controversial role. While publicly framing its actions as support for stability and reform, ICANN has intervened in ways that critics argue undermine judicial processes and community autonomy. Its engagement with CAIGA, alongside its broader attempts to reshape regional internet governance through compliance mechanisms, has raised concerns that Africa’s internet resources are becoming subject to external control rather than regional stewardship.
Also read: AFRINIC’s hidden scandal: How legal fees exposed a culture of corruption
Also read: Could AFRINIC’s Receivership be challenged? Legal paths for reversal
Why it matters
The consequences of these developments extend far beyond institutional politics. For ordinary Africans, digital transformation remains largely aspirational. Large sections of the population still lack affordable internet access, reliable infrastructure and basic digital skills. Yet instead of prioritising these foundational issues, governance debates have become dominated by power struggles between institutions.
Smart Africa’s approach risks reinforcing this disconnect. By prioritising political alignment and continental authority structures, it diverts attention from the grassroots realities of connectivity and inclusion. Citizens become spectators rather than participants in decisions that directly affect access, pricing and digital rights.
ICANN’s actions compound this problem. By over-extending its reach and signalling a willingness to influence leadership and recognition outcomes, it weakens confidence in the neutrality of the global internet governance system. This erosion of trust mirrors the damage already inflicted by AFRINIC’s own governance failures, leaving Africa caught between internal collapse and external intervention.
CAIGA, rather than resolving this crisis, risks institutionalising it. Without clear accountability, transparent decision-making or genuine multistakeholder legitimacy, it represents a shift towards top-down governance that contradicts the principles Africa has long defended in global internet forums.
Africa’s digital future cannot be secured through political shortcuts or external power grabs. Restoring trust requires acknowledging institutional failure, respecting regional autonomy and rebuilding governance from the bottom up. Until that happens, Smart Africa’s digital transformation promises will continue to fall short of the people they are meant to serve.
