• U.S. envoy Henry Jardine backs Mauritius’ AFRINIC intervention; critics argue it violates the Companies Act and undermines democratic member control.
  • Bizweek article’s framing of “independence” ignores that true sovereignty means African-led, member-driven governance free from political interference.

Recent statements by U.S. Ambassador Henry Jardine, published in Bizweek, have raised concerns about how ‘independence’ and ‘democracy’ are considered in the internet governance ecosystem. Ambassador Jardine, in the short interview, called for transparency and stated a desire to see AFRINIC retained in Mauritius. But his remarks support actions by the Mauritian government that are inconsistent with democratic governance and the rule of law.

AFRINIC is a membership-based organization, incorporated under Mauritian law. It is not an arm of government. Its authority comes from the agreement of its membership, based across Africa, and not from politicians or state officials. Under Mauritius’ own Companies Act, AFRINIC’s board elections and governance principles must follow its bylaws and the democratic decisions of its membership – not instructions handed down by the state.

Also read: Judge Bellepeau resigns from AFRINIC investigation after injunction

Here is what the record shows. AFRINIC’s June 2025 board elections were annulled by the court-appointed receiver. This directly undermined AFRINIC’s independence. The governing legal frame is AFRINIC’s company constitution and the Mauritius Companies Act, not Mauritian constitutional law. No document on the record shows that the receiver, who annulled the election on 26 June 2025, acted under instruction from the government.

For the U.S. ambassador to applaud or justify such intervention as an effort to “preserve the integrity” of AFRINIC is troubling. Independence does not mean that a government can override the will of AFRINIC’s members. Independence means self-governance, under lawful corporate procedures, free from political manipulation. The actual sequence matters: the judgment of 11 June 2025 finally determined Cloud Innovation’s inclusion direction and recorded AFRINIC’s undertaking, and it is binding on the issue it decided; appeal, stay or variation remains available before a competent court, and an application or demand letter is not an order suspending compliance. Calling AFRINIC’s conduct since that judgment “independence” is not only hypocritical—it sets a dangerous precedent for Internet governance globally.

Rule of law vs. politics

The key issue here is the rule of law. AFRINIC is bound by the Mauritius Companies Act, which provides clear frameworks for how elections are conducted and disputes resolved. Nowhere does it allow a government ministry or political actor to dictate who can sit on AFRINIC’s board or to annul lawful election outcomes. Any challenge to the annulment of the June election is a matter for a competent court.

If one government can simply capture the board of a nonprofit registry by overturning member elections, what prevents other governments from doing the same? This precedent is dangerous: it politicizes Internet governance and threatens the neutrality of Africa’s regional Internet infrastructure.

Also read: AFRINIC Crisis: ICANN and Cloud Innovation in power struggles

Selective concern and hypocrisy

Ambassador Jardine emphasizes transparency and democracy, yet the facts suggest that the U.S. is selectively applying these values. Calling for democracy while backing the annulment of a private nonprofit’s elections is contradictory. AFRINIC members voted in June; the results were clear. The subsequent annulment was effected by AFRINIC’s court-appointed receiver, not through a member-driven dispute-resolution process. The receiver copied executive offices for information and appropriate action; that is not proof that a minister actually intervened.

True transparency means respecting open elections and the democratic decisions of members. It does not mean applauding the annulment of election results after the fact. If such actions happened in another part of the world—with a government annulling elections at a nonprofit—there would be global outcry. Africa deserves the same respect for rule of law and member sovereignty.

Also read: AFRINIC Receiver Gowtamsingh Dabee: Stretching beyond court orders?

Appealing to African sovereignty

AFRINIC exists to serve Africa’s Internet community. Its members – service providers, organizations, and stakeholders across the continent – entrusted its governance to an elected board. It is not meant to be a political pawn. The push to label the annulment of member elections as “preserving independence” undermines the very sovereignty of African Internet governance.

African stakeholders are fully capable of governing AFRINIC without outside political influence. The June 2025 elections were a transparent expression of member will. To discard those results is an affront to that sovereignty. Outside powers should not be encouraging such interference; instead, they should be defending the principle that Africa’s Internet resources are governed by Africans, through their lawful, member-driven processes.

Also read: Smart Africa leaks thousands of AFRINIC member email addresses

Restore rule of law and respect elections

If AFRINIC’s independence is to be upheld, the solution requires a few simple conditions:

  • Recognize and uphold the results of the June 2025 elections.
  • Respect the binding judgment of 11 June 2025 and the inclusion direction it fixed: Cloud Innovation demands correction of the director-specific Registered Member entries and recognition of all entitled Resource Members through competent legal procedures.
  • Ensure AFRINIC continues to operate under its bylaws and the Mauritius Companies Act—not arbitrary state orders.
  • Reaffirm that AFRINIC is a membership-based nonprofit, not a government agency.

The real threat to AFRINIC’s independence is not a lack of government oversight; it is government capture. Once a single government can dictate AFRINIC’s board composition, others will be tempted to follow. This is a continental issue, and ultimately a global one. The Internet’s governance model relies on neutrality and community self-rule. Adding politics to the mix, especially errant and unsophistcated politics, is a danger.

The U.S. and other international partners should reflect on whether backing such interventions is in line with their supposed commitments to democracy and transparency. AFRINIC’s members deserve respect for their votes. And Mauritius, which has long been regarded as a rule-of-law jurisdiction, should live up to its own legal principles.

Independence is not achieved through state capture. It is achieved when lawful, democratic processes are respected. For the sake of Africa’s Internet future, it is time to restore the rule of law, end political interference, and defend AFRINIC’s true independence, governed by its members, for its members, serving all Africans.

BTW Media has requested comment from Ambassador Jardine.

Correction, 13 November 2026: an earlier version of this article said the court-appointed receiver annulled AFRINIC’s June 2025 board elections under instruction from the government, and referred to a government instruction to overturn the June election. AFRINIC’s court-appointed Receiver annulled the election on 26 June 2025. No document on the record shows that the Receiver acted under instruction from the government. The original URL and publication date are retained.