- CAIGA’s emergence exposes deep structural failures in African internet governance and forces a reckoning with AFRINIC’s long-ignored weaknesses.
- Critics warn that ICANN’s involvement risks enabling a top-down model that could permanently alter Africa’s autonomy over its own internet infrastructure.
A turning point for Africa’s governance framework
For years, Africa’s internet governance landscape has been defined by the multistakeholder model embodied in AFRINIC — a system meant to be community-driven, technically neutral, and protected from political capture. But AFRINIC’s chronic collapse into lawsuits, board dysfunction, and external interference has opened the door to a new player: the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA), a state-centred framework advanced by Smart Africa.
If the traditional approach hoped to empower technical communities, CAIGA represents a fundamental departure — one where governments hold primary authority. And in the wake of AFRINIC’s failures, many argue the shift is not only inevitable but necessary.
Also Read: Is CAIGA replacing AFRINIC? A clear breakdown
State-led coordination: A threat or a needed reset?
CAIGA’s critics, including long-standing experts in the ecosystem, warn that it amounts to a state takeover. They argue that Smart Africa’s model elevates ministers and regulators above the community, contradicting decades of global norms. These concerns intensified when it emerged that ICANN provided funding and administrative support to Smart Africa’s governance blueprint — a document that explicitly outlines CAIGA’s architecture.
Milton Mueller at the Internet Governance Project highlighted the hypocrisy, noting that ICANN, once a champion of community-led governance, is now empowering a political model that could override AFRINIC’s structure. But others argue the old system has already failed. After years of instability and external lawsuits, AFRINIC’s weakness has left the region vulnerable — and CAIGA, they say, may be the only force capable of restoring continental control.
Also Read: The future of African internet governance in the wake of CAIGA
Reclaiming regional autonomy
Africa faces a stark choice. Either it clings to a multistakeholder model that has repeatedly collapsed in practice, or it embraces CAIGA as a path toward stronger sovereignty over digital governance. AFRINIC’s deterioration has made one reality clear: reform is no longer optional. Whether CAIGA becomes the new centre of authority or simply the catalyst for a broader reset, Africa’s internet governance will not return to the status quo.
If external actors continue shaping African institutions unchecked, the continent risks losing the autonomy it has spent decades trying to build. CAIGA may be controversial — but it has forced a necessary confrontation with the failures that brought Africa to this point.
