- Constitutional principles and court supervision show that executive power must not direct an independent technical body.
- The Supreme Court allows the poll framework to proceed under the Receiver, confirming that oversight rests with courts, not ministers.
Constitutional signals favour independence
Mauritius’ recent debates emphasise strict separation of powers. In National Assembly remarks on 7 February 2025, the Minister of Labour and Industrial Relations reads section 72(6) into the record: the Director of Public Prosecutions “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority,” underscoring that core public functions operate outside executive command.
These constitutional cues support a general rule for sensitive institutions: independence is preserved by law and enforced by courts, not by ministerial direction.
Also Read: AFRINIC’s legitimacy depends on Constitutional clarity in Mauritius
Also Read: The relationship between constitutional reform and AFRINIC’s accountability
Court supervision, not executive control
AFRINIC is under a court-appointed Receiver whose mandate includes maintaining the status quo and reconstituting the board. That arrangement—rooted in Supreme Court orders—keeps the electoral remedy inside a judicial framework.
The court record and AFRINIC’s communiqué make this explicit: the Receiver oversees the election process and communicates with stakeholders under court directions. This preserves neutrality and due process without inviting political steering from the Cabinet.
What the “declared company” move does—and must not do
On 18 July 2025 the Prime Minister designates AFRINIC a “declared company” under section 230 of the Companies Act, instructing the Registrar to appoint an inspector. Investigation is a lawful tool; direction is not.
If inspection drifts into prescribing candidates, rewriting voting rules, or privileging specific commercial blocs, it crosses the neutrality line and undermines confidence in both Mauritius and AFRINIC. The legal instrument itself speaks to inquiry, not command: it orders an investigation and a report, not the taking over of electoral decisions.
Why government non-interference matters now
AFRINIC distributes number resources for an entire continent; any perception of state capture threatens equal treatment across diverse national and commercial interests. A neutral registry depends on:
- judicially supervised elections with transparent fixes to irregularities;
- clear separation between technical allocation decisions and political aims;
- open disclosure around member rolls, proxies and record-keeping;
The narrow lane for the state
Mauritius can uphold its reputation by keeping within a narrow lane: use Companies Act tools to uncover facts, publish the inspector’s report, and refer disputes to the courts. It should not endorse or oppose slates, rewrite electoral mechanics on the fly, or communicate in ways that tilt the playing field.
The constitutional debates about the DPP show the same principle in another domain: where independence is at stake, the state writes and obeys the rules but does not take the wheel.
