- Mauritius’ court-directed annulment of AFRINIC’s June 2025 election lacks legal basis under the Companies Act.
- Recognising the September 2025 rerun risks legitimising state interference in African internet governance.
Rule of law versus political power
Mauritius’ handling of the AFRINIC board elections shows how fragile internet governance becomes when courts fail to protect the rule of law. The June 2025 vote, held under court supervision, followed the Mauritius Companies Act and was broadly recognised as free and fair. Yet the government directed a court-appointed receiver to annul those results without any judicial finding of fraud. This instruction contradicted the very legal framework that should guarantee independence for a member-based nonprofit. By enabling a September rerun under the receiver’s control, state authorities demonstrated how political power can override corporate law, eroding confidence in African internet governance. If one government can discard a valid election, other states may copy this tactic, threatening bottom-up decision-making across the global network.
Also read: AFRINIC’s September elections were a flagrant violation of its own bylaws
Also read: What role does the Election Committee (ECom) play in AFRINIC?
International hypocrisy and African sovereignty
Outside actors have deepened the crisis by selectively supporting the September process while claiming to defend transparency and democracy. Signals of endorsement from U.S. officials and new ICP-2 related compliance documents released by ICANN CEO Kurt Lindqvist give weight to a rerun that lacks legal foundation. This backing exposes a double standard: calling for democratic norms while endorsing state-directed intervention in a nonprofit election. African stakeholders argue that true independence means member control, not government management or foreign validation. Restoring legitimacy requires recognising the June results, halting external interference, and reaffirming that AFRINIC must operate strictly under Mauritian company law rather than political instruction.
