- This story explores the dual role of the Official Receiver as a neutral court-appointed officer and why Dabee’s handling of AFRINIC has become controversial.
- It assesses the limits of his authority and the transparency of his decisions within AFRINIC’s governance crisis.
The role of the Official Receiver
As an independent officer charged with protecting assets and guaranteeing equitable treatment of stakeholders, the Official Receiver is appointed by the court to oversee insolvent or troubled businesses in Mauritius. The role has extensive authority, which includes managing operations, controlling company records, and representing the company in court.
This framework is based on the neutrality principle. Under judicial supervision, the Official Receiver is supposed to provide open and honest reports that tell creditors, shareholders, and the general public about the actual financial and governance state of a business. Theoretically, this offers a structured way out of corporate restructuring or collapse.
Dabee’s appointment in the AFRINIC crisis
In February 2025, Mauritius’ Supreme Court appointed Gowtamsingh Dabee as the Official Receiver for AFRINIC, following years of turmoil that had rendered the registry unable to function effectively. His mandate was to restore operational stability, protect critical IP address resources, and oversee the election of a new board.
Court authority was further extended in July when AFRINIC was declared a “declared company,” placing it under even closer scrutiny through a special investigator as announced on the AFRINIC site. These steps confirmed the gravity of AFRINIC’s governance collapse and positioned Dabee as a pivotal figure in determining its future.
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
Controversies around Dabee’s decisions
Dabee’s most controversial action occurred during the AFRINIC board election in June 2025. Following disagreements over voting procedures, he stopped the voting process and subsequently declared the results to be void. Before September, a new election was promised. The intervention increased doubts about whether AFRINIC’s governance could ever be restored democratically.
Critics contend that Dabee’s decision-making was opaque and halted a delicate healing process. Instead, it fuelled scepticism about whether AFRINIC’s governance could ever be stabilised. In response to this conflict, Dabee is nowadays a divisive figure with many seeing him as a disruptor who is extending the operational paralysis.
The path forward under scrutiny
The Dabee predicament draws attention to the wider implications of the AFRINIC crisis. Concerns about whether the registry can ever regain autonomy and trust are still present as ICANN keeps an eye on developments, attemnpting to assert its control. In addition to serving as a neutral guardian, Dabee’s actions must be answerable to all parties involved in the internet ecosystem in Africa.
Dabee’s ability to strike a balance between authority and openness will ultimately determine his legacy as Official Receiver. His contentious choices could be justified if he successfully re-establishes AFRINIC’s operations. Otherwise, he runs the risk of confirming the idea that Mauritius’ governance—and consequently, Africa’s internet future—remains in precarious hands.
