- AFRINIC’s receivership under Dabee faces scrutiny over limited transparency, suspended elections, and weak community engagement.
- Members express concerns that insolvency measures are replacing democratic governance and accountability.
Controversial appointment and lack of engagement
In February 2025, the Supreme Court of Mauritius appointed Gowtamsingh Dabee as AFRINIC’s receiver to restore governance by conducting board elections and safeguarding assets under the Insolvency Act 2009.
However, criticism quickly followed as members reported that the receiver ignored their inquiries and failed to initiate even a single public call for proposals related to necessary services—neglecting basic procedural transparency.
Also read: What is the role of the Official Receiver in Mauritius and why is Dabee controversial?
Also read: Who controls the internet in Africa? The AFRINIC vs. Cloud Innovation case explained
Election fallout and unresolved legal fallout
Under Dabee’s oversight, a June 2025 election was first suspended due to irregularities and later annulled. The decision was not accompanied by a public explanation or report outlining the evidence behind the annulment. The absence of documentation left the process without clarity and reduced confidence in its fairness.
The AFRINIC receivership has issued only limited updates on its roadmap and operational priorities. Communications have focused on administrative steps, while mechanisms for member participation and vendor involvement remain undefined. With no structured framework for engagement, the process appears centralised and detached from community input.
Also read: Cloud Innovation calls for AFRINIC wind-up after ‘impossible’ election standards
Also read: EXPOSED: The letter that reveals who was really benefitting from AFRINIC’s lawsuits
A broker between collapse and reform
The receivership was introduced to stabilise AFRINIC and prepare the organisation for reform. In practice, the process has operated with little inclusivity or accountability. Insolvency management has taken precedence over democratic transition, with few measures introduced to involve stakeholders in decision-making. Meaningful reform will require more than judicial oversight; it will require structured communication, transparent procedures, and genuine community participation.
