- Mauritius’ supreme court hears Cloud Innovation’s call to dissolve AFRINIC after government declares it a “declared company.”
- The case tests if small democracies can protect digital governance from political interference in internet resource management.
Supreme court battle over AFRINIC’s future
In Mauritius, a high-stakes legal battle is unfolding over the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the continent’s Regional Internet Registry, which has been mired in years of governance crisis. The country’s supreme court has become the arena for a clash between democratic principles and entrenched institutional control, after the Prime Minister’s move to declare AFRINIC a “declared company” under local law — a step that places it under tighter state oversight.
Cloud Innovation Ltd., AFRINIC’s third-largest member, has responded by formally calling for AFRINIC’s dissolution, citing “unworkable” election standards and a history of discarded votes that have eroded trust in governance. The company has urged ICANN and the Number Resource Organization to immediately appoint a successor RIR to safeguard Africa’s IP resource management and prevent disruptions to the region’s connectivity and digital infrastructure. This legal fight has now become a litmus test for how judicial independence can function in a politically charged digital governance crisis.
Also Read: Why the AFRINIC dispute is about more than IP addresses – it’s about freedom
Also Read: Mauritius Court blocks government overreach in AFRINIC dispute
Democracy versus centralised control in the internet era
The Mauritius case is more than a dispute over corporate governance — it reflects a deeper struggle over whether courts can shield democratic internet governance from political interference. With AFRINIC’s collapse exposing structural flaws in Africa’s IP address management, stakeholders face a choice between bottom-up, community-led policy-making and top-down control by governments or international bodies. Cloud Innovation’s legal push aligns with the principle that Africa’s internet governance must remain autonomous and transparent, free from opaque political manoeuvres.
Yet the battle is complicated by competing interests: government authorities aiming for oversight, AFRINIC insiders fighting to retain influence, and global internet bodies seeking to shape outcomes to fit their agendas. The outcome in Mauritius will set a precedent for how small democracies navigate the intersection of law, technology, and power — and whether they can resist sliding into a model where critical internet resources are controlled by a few, rather than managed in the open for the benefit of all.
