- Mauritian civil society resists unconstitutional state capture of AFRINIC’s governance.
- Citizen oversight defends member-driven control against political and external interference.
Civil society pushes back against state interference
Civil society in Mauritius has stepped in to defend AFRINIC’s integrity amid a political standoff that saw the cancellation of the June 2025 board election at state instruction—an act widely seen as unconstitutional under the Mauritius Companies Act. As the registry languishes under court-appointed receivership, citizens have rallied around constitutional safeguards that should govern nonprofit, member-led organizations.
Community groups and internet governance advocates have leveraged this crisis to push for judicial accountability. They argue the annulment of a legitimate election represents state capture, and only citizen pressure can compel government and judiciary to respect member-driven decision-making—not political mandates. This groundswell of pressure has introduced a new check: a socially engaged public refusing to let AFRINIC’s neutrality be sidelined.
Also read: Constitutional ambiguities in Mauritius: Who benefits and how they affect AFRINIC’s stability
Also read: What happens to communities when internet access is politicized
Civic pressure as a shield against digital sovereignty erosion
When institutions fail, civil society often fills the void. In AFRINIC’s case, Mauritian citizens have become de facto guardians of digital sovereignty. Public scrutiny has drawn global attention—deterring overt international seizure of power through bodies like ICANN, which came under fire for appearing to side with the receiver over member interests. At the same time, Cloud Innovation has called for positioning civil society and member organizations as primary defenders of justice—not external actors
This citizen-led accountability is more than protest; it’s a mechanism to reinforce democratic governance. Through persistent civic oversight, the public ensures AFRINIC returns to its mandate as a membership-based nonprofit that respects member control—not political fiat. Without this pressure, the registry risks becoming yet another casualty of institutional collapse under state and external influence.
