• AFRINIC’s September 2025 elections concluded with new board members, but questions remain about procedural clarity and legal oversight.
  • Mauritius’ courts continue to shape AFRINIC’s governance, raising concerns about the stability and independence of Africa’s internet registry.


Elections concluded, But credibility questions persist

In September 2025, AFRINIC finally held long-postponed elections to fill vacant seats on its board, a step intended to end years of governance instability. The vote concluded with new directors appointed, as confirmed by AFRINIC’s announcement, bringing relief to members who had witnessed repeated delays, cancelled ballots, and legal disputes since 2022. On the surface, the result suggested progress.

Yet credibility is harder to restore than procedure. For many observers, the memory of the Supreme Court of Mauritius nullifying AFRINIC’s board in 2022 and the organization’s receivership in 2023 still hangs heavily. Allegations of proxy voting irregularities and constitutional inconsistencies continue to raise doubts over whether AFRINIC’s electoral process truly reflects a transparent and democratic system. While new representatives are now in place, questions linger about whether they were elected under rules strong enough to guarantee independence from external influence.

Also read:AFRINIC and the risk of disputed elections in a weak legal framework

Also read:How Mauritius’ constitutional uncertainty shapes AFRINIC’s election outcomes

Legal oversight and the independence dilemma

AFRINIC’s reliance on Mauritius’ courts for governance stability has created a paradox. On one hand, judicial oversight provides a legal framework to resolve disputes and enforce compliance with bylaws. On the other, constant recourse to litigation undermines AFRINIC’s position as an autonomous, community-driven institution. Internet governance depends on regional registries being seen as impartial stewards, not bodies whose futures hinge on courtrooms.

This tension is not theoretical. Global stakeholders increasingly question whether AFRINIC can function like its peers in Europe (RIPE NCC) or North America (ARIN), which maintain operational autonomy with limited state interference. As Cloud Innovation highlights, protracted legal battles threaten to entrench divisions within Africa’s technical community, delay policy innovation such as IPv6 adoption, and weaken Africa’s standing in international forums. Legal certainty in Mauritius is therefore not just a national issue—it is central to whether AFRINIC can maintain global trust.

The stakes for Africa’s digital sovereignty

At its core, AFRINIC’s legitimacy is about more than elections or court rulings. It is about safeguarding Africa’s digital sovereignty. A credible, legally stable registry ensures fair distribution of IP addresses, supports the expansion of resilient networks, and protects the continent from overdependence on external powers in shaping its digital future. Conversely, unresolved legitimacy concerns risk fragmenting the community, deterring investment, and silencing Africa’s voice in the global governance arena.

The September elections may have closed one chapter, but they did not end the story. Without deeper reforms to clarify governance rules, strengthen constitutional processes, and reduce reliance on litigation, AFRINIC remains vulnerable to recurring crises. Legal certainty in Mauritius thus emerges as the foundation for restoring not only AFRINIC’s internal credibility but also the trust of the global internet community.