- Proxy dispute halted June’s election, leaving hundreds disenfranchised.
- Critics say new rules breach Mauritian law and AFRINIC’s own bylaws.
Disputed vote fuels legal challenges
AFRINIC abruptly called off its latest board vote after a dispute over a single proxy. The shutdown left swathes of members — including people who had turned up in person — unable to cast a ballot. Lawyers and industry groups have since denounced the move as unlawful, saying it stripped members of basic voting rights and further hollowed out trust in the process.
The fallout exposed deeper problems. AFRINIC has been under court-appointed receivership for months, without an elected board or chief executive. Critics say the decision to cancel votes ignored constitutional requirements and created further instability. Observers highlight that the removal of proxies contradicts Mauritian company law, which explicitly protects the right of members to appoint representatives. Analysts also point to international concerns over election integrity, warning that AFRINIC’s actions mirror the behaviour of institutions where legality is sacrificed for control.
Also read: Cloud Innovation calls for AFRINIC wind-up after ‘impossible’ election standards
Also read: EXPOSED: The letter that reveals who was really benefitting from AFRINIC’s lawsuits
Legitimacy under threat in Afrinic governance
For critics, AFRINIC’s governance is now beyond repair. Cancelling a valid election on the basis of one disputed proxy has eroded trust in its ability to follow either its bylaws or Mauritian law. Members argue this shows a disregard for basic rights, and the lack of accountability has deepened long-standing concerns about fairness and transparency.
The absence of proper consultation and oversight means that any re-run of the vote is at risk of being challenged in court. Observers warn that without clarity, the process could once again be annulled, prolonging the paralysis that already undermines the registry’s credibility and frustrating those who depend on stable governance of Africa’s internet resources.
Cloud Innovation and other stakeholders argue that AFRINIC can no longer deliver credible elections on its own. They insist that oversight under ICP-2—where another Regional Internet Registry could assume its duties—is the only realistic solution. Until such steps are taken, AFRINIC’s processes remain legally fragile, its legitimacy compromised, and the continent’s digital future increasingly uncertain.
