• The 2025 AFRINIC election process is increasingly seen through the lens of Mauritius’ broader political divides, raising new questions about fairness and institutional trust.
  • Government interventions and legal disputes reflect and deepen political polarization, complicating AFRINIC’s path toward stable, credible governance.

Government steps in during disputed vote

Mauritius’ political polarization has begun to cast long shadows over AFRINIC‘s election process. A key development was in July 2025, when the Prime Minister designated AFRINIC as a “declared company” under Section 230 of the Companies Act 2001. This classification, initiated by government decree, mandates enhanced oversight, triggering an inspector’s investigation into AFRINIC’s governance and past election failures. Critics argue this step—though legal—may not be entirely insulated from political influence.

Earlier, the government’s Ministry of ICT and national police intervened during the June 2025 elections, citing a dispute over one invalid proxy vote. The intervention led to vote counting being suspended and ultimately annulled. Many member entities felt hundreds of valid votes were discarded due to one challenge—fueling perceptions that political actors could exploit disputes to influence outcomes.

Mauritius’ courts have played an active role—sometimes supporting internal election committees, sometimes restraining state interference. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that AFRINIC’s nomination structures were valid, allowing the June election to proceed under certain conditions. Yet those rulings often came after major disruptions, making the electoral process feel reactive rather than proactively safeguarded. These legal steps are necessary, but in a polarized environment, they also become battlegrounds for public trust.

Also read:AFRINIC elections and Mauritius constitution: Law vs governance

Also read:Why AFRINIC needs certainty beyond Mauritius‘ constitution

Members question trust after September election

For many AFRINIC members and observers, the combination of election annulments, government classifications, and court rulings has created a sense that outcomes depend not purely on rules but on political alignments or external pressures. This is troubling for a regional internet registry whose legitimacy depends heavily on the perception of fairness, neutrality, and community control.

In September 2025, when AFRINIC finally succeeded in electing a new board, the event was welcomed by some as a reset. Yet others pointed out that procedural irregularities—especially around proxy voting rights and eligibility criteria—were addressed only under pressure, not by default. The lingering narrative is that political polarization in Mauritius shapes not just national politics but spills over into technical/institutional arenas like AFRINIC.

To move forward, AFRINIC must demonstrate consistent, transparent rules that are insulated from political tug-of-war. Strengthening internal electoral safeguards, clarifying proxy vote processes, ensuring less discretionary power for government or ministry intervention, and proactively publishing procedural justifications will be vital. Only by doing so can AFRINIC hope to foster perceptions of neutrality, rebuild member confidence, and ensure that elections are not viewed as reflections of political currents but as the authoritative voice of the internet community in Africa.