• Mauritius Supreme Court vs Executive: AFRINIC’s governance crisis sparks a constitutional clash over judicial independence.
• ICANN Under Fire: Global internet body accused of siding with unelected leadership in Mauritius’ AFRINIC dispute
AFRINIC at the edge: no CEO, no board, no democracy
In the world of internet governance, obscure acronyms rarely spark political crises. But in Mauritius — a small island nation that happens to host Africa’s central internet registry — the current turmoil inside AFRINIC has become a high-stakes battle over the rule of law, democratic integrity, and the very principles that underpin a free internet.
AFRINIC, the non-profit body responsible for allocating IP addresses across Africa, is supposed to be run by a CEO and a community-elected board. Today, it has neither. Instead, it is drifting under the control of an interim executive, mired in legal challenges, and facing elections that many observers fear could be manipulated — or worse, rendered meaningless.
At the heart of this crisis lies a collision between Mauritius’ judiciary and its executive branch — a collision now spilling into the international arena, drawing in global internet governance bodies, corporate actors, and legal heavyweights.
Also read: EXPOSED: The letter that reveals who was really benefitting from AFRINIC’s lawsuits
Also read: AFRINIC elections 2025: Everything you need to know
From registry crisis to constitutional standoff
The trouble escalated in recent months when the Supreme Court of Mauritius issued a ruling barring a judge from investigating AFRINIC’s affairs in the run-up to its board elections. The injunction was intended to protect due process and prevent interference that could tilt the outcome.
But that judicial safeguard was soon challenged — not by a local political faction, but by the combined weight of AFRINIC’s interim leadership, members of the Mauritian executive branch, and even ICANN, the California-based non-profit that oversees the global domain name system.
By aligning itself with AFRINIC’s interim executive and the political powers backing them, ICANN effectively took a position against the Mauritian Supreme Court’s ruling. In doing so, critics say, the global internet governance giant crossed a dangerous line — abandoning its commitment to bottom-up, community-led decision-making in favor of backing a leadership model that bears disturbing resemblance to authoritarian control.
Also read: EXPOSED: The letter that reveals who was really benefitting from AFRINIC’s lawsuits
The anatomy of a power vacuum
AFRINIC’s governance vacuum is unprecedented. The CEO position has been vacant for months. The board — whose members are normally elected by the African internet community — has been unable to function. This paralysis has left a small group of appointed executives effectively in control, without the checks and balances normally provided by democratic oversight.
The upcoming elections were supposed to restore legitimacy. Instead, they have become the flashpoint. With the Supreme Court’s intervention now being openly challenged, fears are mounting that the process will be run in a way that entrenches the current unelected leadership, bypassing the will of AFRINIC’s members and the African internet community at large.
The stakes could not be higher: AFRINIC controls the distribution of critical internet number resources for the entire continent. Whoever controls AFRINIC controls a fundamental piece of Africa’s digital future.
Also read: Mauritian judge barred from investigating AFRINIC amid pre-election turmoil
A global Governance test — and ICANN’s role
ICANN’s involvement has been sharply criticized. As the steward of the global internet’s naming and numbering systems, ICANN is supposed to uphold the multistakeholder model — a process that gives communities, not governments or unelected executives, the final say in how the internet is run.
By siding with AFRINIC’s interim management and the Mauritian executive, ICANN is seen as tacitly endorsing a power structure that bypasses democratic safeguards. In practical terms, that means an American-based non-profit is taking a political position in a sovereign nation’s constitutional dispute — and doing so in a way that weakens, rather than reinforces, the independence of its judiciary.
Mauritius’ judiciary vs. executive: a digital civil war
What began as a dispute over corporate governance has now evolved into what some call a “civil war” between Mauritius’ judiciary and its executive arm. On one side: the Supreme Court, insisting on due process and legal protections. On the other: political leaders determined to exert control over AFRINIC, even if it means undermining judicial authority.
For Mauritius — a country whose legal system is modeled on the UK’s, with an emphasis on separation of powers — this is more than a technical quarrel. It strikes at the heart of the nation’s constitutional identity. If the judiciary can be overruled in such a visible case, it risks setting a precedent that could erode democratic governance in other sectors.
Lu Heng: the unlikely champion of the constitution
Amid the chaos, one figure has emerged as the most vocal defender of the court’s authority: Lu Heng, CEO of Cloud Innovation, a company that has long been at odds with AFRINIC’s leadership over resource allocation policies.
Lu’s legal challenges — often portrayed by opponents as self-serving — have consistently invoked the Mauritian Constitution’s guarantees of due process and judicial independence. His position is simple: AFRINIC’s governance must be rooted in community-driven principles, not dictated by unelected executives or foreign-backed political agendas.
Whether motivated by personal stake or principle (or both), Lu has become the most visible advocate for defending the Supreme Court’s role in resolving the crisis. In the process, he has forced a wider conversation about whether internet governance institutions are truly accountable to the communities they serve.
The road ahead
AFRINIC’s elections are looming, but whether they will be free, fair, and respected is far from certain. The international internet governance community is watching closely — not just because of AFRINIC’s importance to Africa’s digital infrastructure, but because this may be the first major test of whether the multistakeholder model can withstand direct political interference.
If AFRINIC falls to an authoritarian-style capture, the precedent could ripple far beyond Africa. Other regional internet registries could face similar pressures. Global institutions like ICANN could find themselves more directly entangled in national political struggles. And the line between technical coordination and political control could blur beyond recognition.
For now, AFRINIC teeters on the edge — leaderless, boardless, and dangerously close to losing the democratic legitimacy it was built upon. Whether the coming weeks deliver restoration or collapse will depend on one thing: whether the rule of law, not political convenience, prevails.
