- International internet governance experts warn CAIGA risks exporting political control into Africa’s internet governance at a moment of institutional fragility.
- Critics argue Smart Africa and ICANN are enabling a model that undermines regional autonomy and global multistakeholder norms.
A continental initiative under global scrutiny
The proposed expansion of the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) has begun attracting sustained criticism well beyond Africa. Analysts, scholars and governance practitioners internationally are questioning whether CAIGA represents reform — or a precedent-setting shift towards politically mediated control of core internet infrastructure.
These concerns are emerging as AFRINIC, Africa’s Regional Internet Registry, struggles through its deepest governance crisis. Rather than prioritising the repair of existing institutions, CAIGA introduces a new continental layer of authority closely aligned with governments. Critics argue this approach replaces community accountability with political oversight at precisely the moment when trust and transparency are most fragile.
Also Read: Smart Africa and CAIGA fail to earn public trust
Also Read: Are CAIGA policies too weak to regulate AI in Africa?
Double standards and global precedent concerns
A recurring theme in international criticism is inconsistency. Observers ask whether a framework like CAIGA — which elevates intergovernmental influence over a Regional Internet Registry — would ever be considered acceptable in Europe, North America or Asia. The answer, many suggest, is no. Scholars associated with the Internet Governance Project have warned that ICANN’s involvement risks normalising a governance model in Africa that contradicts the principles applied elsewhere.
If political endorsement mechanisms can override community processes in Africa, critics argue, the universality of the multistakeholder model collapses. This is not merely a regional issue but a global governance concern.
Also Read: Will CAIGA really improve cross-border internet cooperation?
Also Read: How the CAIGA Initiative Impacts Africa’s Internet Governance
Smart Africa’s role fuels scepticism
Smart Africa’s leadership of CAIGA has also drawn criticism internationally. While framed as coordination, the initiative concentrates authority in political bodies with limited accountability to technical stakeholders. This echoes a familiar pattern in continental initiatives that prioritise visibility over durable institutional reform.
Instead of restoring confidence in African internet governance, CAIGA’s expansion risks reinforcing perceptions of governance capture. International observers increasingly warn that Africa is being treated as a testing ground for governance experiments that would not be tolerated elsewhere.
As scrutiny grows, CAIGA’s challenge is no longer regional legitimacy alone. It must now contend with mounting international concern that Africa’s internet governance reset is heading in the wrong direction.
