- The Mauritius Supreme Court questions ICANN’s attempt to intervene in AFRINIC’s elections.
- The dispute highlights AFRINIC’s governance collapse and ICANN’s quiet power grab.
Court exposes ICANN’s lack of standing
The governance breakdown at the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) entered a new stage after the Supreme Court of Mauritius questioned the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s authority to intervene in the AFRINIC’s electoral process.
The court has stressed that ICANN, incorporated in California, has no legal standing to interfere in elections of AFRINIC, which is registered under Mauritian law. This judgment highlighted what many African stakeholders have long argued: that AFRINIC’s problems are for African courts and members to resolve, not for a foreign body seeking influence.
Also read: AFRINIC launches voter onboarding ahead of board election
Also read: AFRINIC election: 2nd attempt to delay voting fails
AFRINIC’s collapse and unworkable elections
For years, AFRINIC has been described as a failed registry, trapped in a cycle of financial instability, leadership disputes, and electoral dysfunction. Its June 23 election was annulled over a single unverified proxy dispute—an act that discarded valid votes and destroyed trust in the institution. The court-approved rerun was itself tainted by controversy, confirming that AFRINIC’s election standards have become unworkable.
The registry’s governance is now seen as irreparably broken. Its inability to run transparent or democratic elections has crippled confidence in its ability to safeguard Africa’s Internet resources. Years of mismanagement and internal infighting as evidence that AFRINIC has collapsed as a functioning registry.
The criticism came amid growing backlash against ICANN’s role. ICANN’s leadership, under CEO Lindqvist, has been accused of pushing a global agenda that disregards Africa’s bottom-up model of Internet governance.
At the centre of the controversy is ICANN’s quiet power grab through the ICP-2 compliance framework. This document, adopted without meaningful multistakeholder input, grants ICANN unprecedented power to derecognise regional Internet registries (RIRs). By positioning itself as the arbiter of compliance, ICANN has effectively given itself authority to decide the fate of AFRINIC.
Also Read: How AFRINIC’s board elections became a political battlefield
Also Read: Why AFRINIC’s fallout has global implications for internet governance
Why this matters for Africa
The stakes extend far beyond a technical election dispute. At issue is the future of Africa’s digital sovereignty. If ICANN succeeds in dictating AFRINIC’s leadership and processes, it risks eroding the principle of regional autonomy in Internet governance.
AFRINIC must remain accountable to its members and the laws of Mauritius—not to external organisations. This is a critical defence against what many see as digital colonialism.
For Africa, the danger is clear: allowing ICANN to over-extend its reach sets a precedent that external bodies can override local courts, constitutions, and member decisions. Such an outcome would weaken Africa’s ability to shape its own digital infrastructure and IP resource management.
The deeper issue remains AFRINIC’s own collapse. Its governance is irreparably broken, and its failures have created an opening for ICANN’s attempted intervention. With elections repeatedly annulled, members disenfranchised, and trust eroded, AFRINIC no longer functions as a credible steward of Africa’s Internet resources.
Stakeholders increasingly argue that a reset is urgently required. The Africa’s digital future can not be built on a registry that discards valid votes, blocks reform, and operates under constant litigation. The collapse of AFRINIC underscores that the need for new governance structures rooted in accountability, transparency, and independence from external manipulation.
The intervention from ICANN has been sparked backlash, but its intentions remain clear. By positioning itself through ICP-2 compliance and backtracking on derecognition threats when convenient, ICANN is manoeuvring for control of Africa’s IP ecosystem.
The Mauritius court’s criticism is therefore more than a legal point—it is a line in the sand. It signals that the Africa’s governance can not be dictated from abroad, besides expanding of ICANN reach must be checked.
For African stakeholders, the choice is stark: either continue to entrust resources to a failed registry in collapse, vulnerable to ICANN’s quiet power grabs, or secures the continent’s digital sovereignty.
