AFRINIC’s September elections were a flagrant violation of its own bylaws

AFRINIC’s September 2025 elections flouted its own bylaws, raising serious legitimacy concerns and undermining Africa’s internet governance.

• Elections violated bylaws on NomCom composition, proxy voting rights, and director appointments, rendering the process unlawful and illegitimate.
• The June 2025 results, annulled over a single proxy dispute, remain the only lawful and representative election outcome.

When AFRINIC members went to vote again in September 2025, they did so under a process that was controversial and arguably illegal. Despite months of litigation and court oversight, the very institution charged with restoring order—the court-appointed Official Receiver—oversaw elections that trampled AFRINIC’s own constitution. Far from resolving the governance crisis, the September vote has only deepened questions about legitimacy and the rule of law in Africa’s Regional Internet Registry.

Election with too many bylaw breaches

At the heart of the problem lies AFRINIC’s constitution. Its bylaws are clear, detailed, and meant to guard against precisely the sort of procedural shortcuts and power plays that now threaten to unravel its governance. Yet, during September’s election, multiple sections were openly disregarded.

Bylaw 9.1 and 9.1-A: These provisions are explicit. No one domiciled in a region with an open board seat can serve on the Nominations Committee (NomCom). Furthermore, no NomCom member can simultaneously stand for election. These rules exist to prevent conflicts of interest and to guarantee neutrality in candidate selection. And yet, the very structure of the September NomCom violated this safeguard, since all five sub-regions were simultaneously up for renewal. A “compliant” NomCom was therefore impossible under the bylaws—yet one was assembled regardless, tainting the process from the start.

Bylaw 12.12: Even more glaring was the Receiver’s unilateral removal of proxy voting. AFRINIC’s constitution allows members to appoint proxies to cast votes on their behalf—an essential democratic mechanism in a region where not every member can participate in person or online. The September election eliminated this right entirely, insisting on online-only participation. The justification? To avoid a repeat of the disputed June election, where a single contested proxy vote led to annulment. But curing one irregularity by disenfranchising dozens more is no cure at all. Instead, it stripped members of rights explicitly guaranteed in the bylaws and in the Mauritian Companies Act. See also: AfriNIC's Vanishing Member register.

Section 13: Appointment of Directors: The bylaws clearly outline how directors are to be appointed—through elections conducted in accordance with AFRINIC’s constitution. By sidelining member-approved procedures and reshaping the voting system without consultation or consent, the September process bypassed the lawful framework for board appointments. The outcome: directors “elected” in a manner inconsistent with AFRINIC’s own rules. See also: Alejandro Fernandez.

Official Receiver’s overreach

Equally troubling is the way the September vote came to be. Originally, the court-appointed Receiver’s mandate was meant to expire on June 30, 2025, following the annulled June election. Without meaningful consultation, his authority was extended until September 30. In doing so, the Receiver assumed powers far beyond the temporary caretaker role the court had originally envisioned. Instead of acting as a neutral facilitator, the Receiver redesigned fundamental aspects of AFRINIC’s governance, effectively rewriting rules on his own authority.

The irony is hard to miss: a single disputed proxy vote in June was sufficient grounds to annul an entire election. And yet, in September, a wholesale rejection of bylaws, member rights, and established procedures was allowed to stand. If the June results were invalidated for a technicality, surely the September results—resting on multiple explicit violations—should be doubly void. See also: Aldo Garcia.

Also read: AFRINIC election: Voter fraud uncovered as ECom member threatens to resign
Also read: Why AFRINIC’s election security needs stronger legal guarantees in Mauritius

Dangerous precedent

The consequences of legitimizing the September election extend far beyond AFRINIC. AFRINIC manages IP address allocations for the entire African continent, and therefore plays a vital role in the global internet governance community. Its trustworthiness rests on its adherence to due process and its constitution. By recognising elections that flout its bylaws, AFRINIC is welcoming arbitrary governance, eroding trust and undermining the authority of regional registries worldwide. See also: Alcymer Vieira.

The argument that proxies were “abused” is no excuse to abolish them entirely. The argument that deadlines were “inconvenient” is no excuse to extend mandates without transparency. And the argument that a NomCom must be formed—even in breach of the bylaws—is no excuse to seat candidates under a cloud of illegitimacy. Every one of these shortcuts chips away at the legitimacy AFRINIC so desperately needs. See also: Alcides Cremonezi.

Recognize the June results

There is only one path to restoring confidence: recognizing the results of the June 2025 election. That election, whatever its flaws, was conducted within the framework of AFRINIC’s constitution. The dispute over a single proxy vote should have been resolved through investigation and remediation—not through annulment and wholesale reinvention of the process. By contrast, the September vote was conducted outside the law, violating multiple bylaws and disenfranchising members.

Legitimacy cannot be built on convenience. AFRINIC’s role demands elections that are free, lawful and democratic. The September elections were none of these, instead opening the door for an abuse of power, a disregard for the constitution, and a dangerous precedent for internet governance on the continent.AFRINIC must acknowledge the obvious: the September elections are invalid. The only democratic and lawful course is to reinstate the June results, allowing the voices of members who voted then—lawfully, and under the bylaws—to be heard. See also: Alberto Anaya.