- The June 2025 AFRINIC election was lawful and must be recognised under the Mauritius Companies Act.
- The September rerun, ordered under government instruction, violates rule of law and undermines member sovereignty.
Legal basis for member claims and the limits of internal remedies
AFRINIC operates as a membership-based non-profit incorporated under Mauritius company law. That legal identity creates a set of contractual and statutory obligations owed to members: to run elections in accordance with the organisation’s constitution and bylaws, to maintain accurate membership records, and to administer services and governance processes with reasonable care. Where those obligations are breached, members commonly have two broad routes for redress.
The first is contractual: members can pursue remedies arising from the terms in AFRINIC’s articles, membership agreements and published election rules if those instruments create enforceable promises.
The second is statutory: company law in Mauritius provides duties and protections for members of companies limited by guarantee, including rights to seek relief where controllers act ultra vires or in bad faith. In practice, contractual claims could seek damages, specific performance (for instance, recognition of a validly elected board) or injunctive relief to prevent ongoing harm to members’ interests.
These remedies are contingent on establishing that AFRINIC’s procedures or its agents—whether trustees, executives or a court-appointed receiver—failed to observe the legal and contractual safeguards that protect members.
Crucially, procedural safeguards must be visible and enforceable: internal grievance panels, independent audit of ballots and clearly articulated escalation paths are conditions that strengthen any subsequent legal claim. Where internal remedies are exhausted or ineffective, members may be justified in escalating to the courts to vindicate contractual and statutory rights, though litigation outcomes depend on the particulars of the breach and the remedies sought.
Also read: AFRINIC election results face legitimacy challenge over governance breaches
Also read: AFRINIC election: Voter fraud uncovered as ECom member threatens to resign
When political orders override process: causation, damages and the case for recognition of June results
There is a further and more urgent legal question when state actors intervene: causation and damages. If a government instruction results in a receiver annulling a lawfully conducted election, members may be able to show that the organisation’s loss of governance, the disruption to services, reputational harm and commercial losses flowed directly from that intervention.
Establishing causation in such cases requires careful factual proof: what precisely was done, by whom, and on what legal basis. Where the annulment lacks a clear judicial basis under the Mauritius Companies Act and the June 2025 election was conducted under court supervision in line with AFRINIC’s rules, a strong argument exists that the annulment itself is the unlawful act that caused members’ losses.
That argument supports both a claim for damages and urgent declaratory relief to restore members’ rights. Conversely, where the annulment is followed by a rerun—such as the September 2025 poll—that was made possible only after state-directed intervention, members face the prospect that recognising the rerun would extinguish remedies and legitimise political override.
For this reason, pursuing contractual or company-law remedies goes hand in hand with a demand for immediate recognition of the June mandate: recognising that result preserves the legal position of members pending final adjudication, prevents further irreparable harm and avoids creating a precedent that allows governments to substitute political will for member choice.
Finally, any move to invoke ICP-2 or to transfer AFRINIC’s duties to an existing RIR must occur only within clear legal and member-approved processes; such transfers cannot be used as a backdoor to deny members their contractual remedies or to validate interventions that usurp member control.
