- AFRINIC has warned its members against answering a simple factual question from NRS, invoking courts, contempt, and anti-spam laws instead of addressing substance.
- NRS says members have every right to confirm whether they voted, and that intimidation undermines trust and accountability.
Transparency is not a luxury for an organization entrusted with overseeing Africa’s internet number resources. But the most recent public exchange between AFRINIC and the Number Resource Society (NRS) suggests that AFRINIC is a registry that responds to elementary factual questions not with transparency but with warnings, legal posturing, and thinly veiled threats.
The controversy revolves around a couple of blogs written within days of each other in December 2025. AFRINIC’s letter, published “by order of the Board of Directors and the Receiver,” is aimed at NRS, which emailed some AFRINIC members with one simple request: if you didn’t register to vote at the September 2025 board election, but believe a vote has been cast in your name, then please let NRS know.
AFRINIC calls this outreach spam, suggests it could be illegal, and warns members that responding could interfere with court proceedings.
Also read: Africa’s digital future at risk: How Smart Africa may be deepening tech dependency
Two statements, worlds apart
NRS’s response is calm, exact, and scathing. It rebuffs the insinuations completely, telling the story in absolute terms: To simply ask members whether found a vote cast in their name when they had not registered, is not unlawful or disdainful. And the effort to scare members out of answering any such questions, NRS maintains, is unjustifiable.
The difference between those two statements is clear: AFRINIC relies heavily on authority (courts, judges, receivers, and the concept of sub judice) without getting into the substance of the concern. NRS, however, is concerned about member rights, factual accuracy, and the chilling impact of institutional intimidation.
Also read: Smart Africa under scrutiny: Vision without governance
A question AFRINIC will not answer
What NRS asked AFRINIC members to do here is notably modest. It didn’t solicit any comment on litigation going forward. It did not seek opinions on whether the election was valid. It was not calling for members to denounce AFRINIC or its newly formed board. It asked two yes-or-no questions: 1. Did you register to vote? 2. Did you vote?
These details are only known to the member by themselves. They are not secret, privileged, or amenable to judicial interpretation. They do not impinge on the merits of a present case before a court. They merely determine whether the voter roll and ballot records reflect members’ activities.
Also read: How local ISPs and businesses are impacted by AFRINIC decisions
The misuse of sub judice
AFRINIC’s answer does not confront this distinction. Instead, it tacks on the language of sub judice, noting that such “public comments or actions” could be construed as contempt of court.
That’s a dangerous accusation to stake out among a membership base that comprises dozens of African jurisdictions with small operators, nonprofits, businesses, and so on — most of whom have limited access to legal counsel.
But sub judice is not a magic spell that makes all discussion sacred. The courts limit commentary that might prejudice proceedings, not the sharing of impartial, factual information among private persons about their own actions. NRS makes this clear: to say whether or not you voted does not constitute a comment on the legality of an election dispute.
If AFRINIC disagrees it owes its members a clear legal explanation from the very top; not a vague alert that something “could be construed” as contempt.
Also read: Why CAIGA’s expansion is drawing international criticism
Elections under a long shadow
This exchange doesn’t take place in a vacuum. AFRINIC, for its part, has grappled with litigation, governance crises and infighting for years. The Board election for September 2025 was held in after a court order which came after long-running disputes leading to the placing of a receiver. Cloud Innovation Ltd is facing ongoing litigation and appeals are reportedly ongoing.
AFRINIC’s declaration highlights that the election was under judicial supervision of the Electoral Commissioner of the Republic of Mauritius under a judge’s order. NRS does not deny that supervision existed in form, but presents serious inquiries about whether such supervision existed in substance.
More importantly, NRS emphasizes that portions of the process are still subject to contestation and review. It is at best premature to declare the matter settled, as AFRINIC’s tone implies.
It is understandable — but not excusable — for AFRINIC to be so sensitive to independent scrutiny in view of this milieu. Those in the midst of a governance crisis do not rebuild trust by avoiding questions. They mend trust by answering them.
Also read: ICANN’s AFRINIC hypocrisy: CEO Lindqvist admits to funding a state-led power grab
Who is really being threatened?
One of the most troubling aspects of AFRINIC’s statement is its implied threat. It conjures contempt of court, illegality, and data protection violations to insinuate that people who respond to NRS face legal action.
NRS adds that people who have not yet been established as directors, are endorsing and issuing such warnings.
Contempt cases are not informal measures. They are hard-hitting sanctions meant to safeguard the administration of justice, not to absolve organisations of embarrassment.
It’s a remarkable suggestion that AFRINIC members may be considered in contempt of court by simply stating whether they voted.
The likely effect of such messaging is chilling. Members might feel it is safer to remain quiet, even if they knew something wasn’t right. The silence is most likely beneficial for people who would prefer that uncomfortable questions go unanswered.
Also read: Is Smart Africa becoming another symbolic continental initiative?
Transparency requires no mandate
AFRINIC reiterates that NRS has no mandate, is not a member, nor has it been authorised to carry out a verification exercise. And it’s true — and almost entirely irrelevant.
Transparency does not depend on receiving consent from the institution being monitored. Without official mandates civil society groups, informal associations and stakeholders regularly ask questions, gather testimony and publish results. That is how accountability translates into practice in multi-stakeholder internet governance settings.
NRS is careful not to assume control it does not have. It does not claim to certify election results or supplant the judicial process. It urges members to share information that, if there are any irregularities, could be reported “through the appropriate lawful channels.” That is an example of responsible engagement.
The question AFRINIC won’t confront
Cut through the legal jargon, the institutional defensiveness and the spam accusations; one question is clear: why is AFRINIC so afraid of members answering a simple factual query?
If the voter register is accurate, if ballots were cast only by those who registered, and if the process was as thorough as AFRINIC claims, then NRS’s exercise should have no immediate threat. Independent confirmation from members would bolster confidence, not undercut it.
AFRINIC’s reaction indicates the opposite. It indicates an agency that is more interested in controlling the story than in setting the facts.
In response, NRS urges de-escalation and due process be respected, and a transparent space for members. It is the language of a group wanting to expand the space for accountability, not shrink it.
AFRINIC, on the other hand, seems determined to reduce that space, warning its members that there is distance between it and the most innocuous forms of engagement.
Africa’s internet community needs better. It deserves a registry that reads questions as a mark of engagement, not insubordination, and understands that this is an essential principle of governance: If there’s nothing to hide, you don’t fear the facts!
