- AFRINIC’s 2025 board elections trigger concerns over legal compliance.
- Risks to governance standards and institutional neutrality.
A second election under pressure
The African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) held its second board election of 2025 from 10 to 12 September. Eight directors were announced as successful candidates on 15 September. The process was conducted electronically and supervised by AFRINIC’s Election Committee together with a Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
This vote follows the collapse of an earlier election in June. That ballot is annulled by the Court after irregularities in procedure. The September process is meant to deliver clarity and restore trust. Yet doubts have already surfaced. The presence of a court-appointed authority, combined with disputes over ballots and voting rights, has turned the new election into a contested event.
AFRINIC is incorporated in Mauritius as a member-based non-profit. This means that its internal governance must respect both its own constitution and the Mauritius Companies Act. Critics of the September vote argue that these requirements are not met in full.
Key points of concern include the verification of proxies, the recognition of member rights, and the supervision of the ballot. For many observers, these weaknesses raise a direct question about whether the process satisfies the legal framework. If statutory safeguards are not observed, the legitimacy of the outcome cannot be assured, which demonstrates that election of September 2025 should not be recognised.
Also read: AFRINIC claims ‘website not hacked’ amid election-period concerns
Also read: AFRINIC election: Voter fraud uncovered as ECom member threatens to resign
Member control and external authority
The debate highlights a deeper conflict between member control and external authority. AFRINIC, like other Regional Internet Registries, is founded on the principle that its members elect directors and set policy. The involvement of a court-appointed Receiver signals a shift away from this model.
While intended as a stabilising measure, the intervention is seen by many as incompatible with the autonomy of members. Accepting the September results under these conditions risks establishing a precedent in which outside powers can influence or overturn elections in independent technical bodies.
Neutrality under strain
AFRINIC’s role extends far beyond corporate formality. As the Regional Internet Registry for Africa, it allocates IP address space and autonomous system numbers across the continent. Stability in this function depends on neutral governance.
The September election disputes put this neutrality in doubt. If the outcome is viewed as the result of legal pressure rather than transparent procedure, confidence in AFRINIC’s independence will erode. That perception can damage trust among African network operators and raise questions within the wider global community.
International attention
The case also matters beyond Mauritius. AFRINIC is one of five Regional Internet Registries that together underpin global internet governance. Any weakness in one registry raises questions about the resilience of the system as a whole.
If a government or court can annul or alter an election in one registry, it opens the possibility of similar actions elsewhere. This dynamic risks undermining the shared principles that allow the internet’s numbering and addressing system to function.
For Mauritius, the election becomes a test of its legal environment. International organisations will examine whether statutory safeguards are enforced. If the process is judged deficient, it may affect perceptions of Mauritius as a host country for global non-profits.
