AFRINIC election annulled and re-run set for September – but is a do-over the best path forward?

• Observers question the necessity of a fresh election after June vote.

AFRINIC election reset for September 2025 – but why?

In the latest chapter of AFRINIC’s ongoing governance crisis, the Supreme Court of Mauritius has approved an extension of the internet registry’s board elections to 30 September 2025, following the annulment of the initial vote held on 23 June. The decision came after Afrinic’s court-appointed receiver petitioned for more time to organise what is now being treated as a fresh election.

The annulment, announced on 26 June, stemmed from concerns about inconsistencies in voter documentation and potential irregularities in proxy voting. While transparency and procedural fairness are the stated priorities behind the reset, critics are questioning whether discarding the June results entirely—and redoing the election months later—is a proportional or necessary response. See also: AfriNIC board faces legitimacy test.

Also read: AFRINIC election and ICANN overreach: Jurisdiction lost
Also read: AFRINIC elections 2025: Everything you need to know

The Supreme Court agreed to the extension after reviewing arguments from the receiver, who is tasked with stabilising Afrinic’s governance following years of legal turmoil and institutional paralysis. As part of its ruling, the court instructed the receiver to keep members informed throughout the process, including updates on any revisions to the election timeline or voting procedures.

Supporters of the extension argue that the additional time allows for a thorough vetting of voter registrations, proxy rules, and the roles of the nomination and election committees. Proponents say that a fully transparent process will help restore member trust and ensure alignment with Afrinic’s bylaws—crucial for the registry’s mandate to allocate IP resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASN) across Africa. See also: AfriNIC board: The Eight Who Govern Africa’s Internet.

Where is transparency and fairness?

However, some stakeholders contend that the more pragmatic and stabilising course would be to recognise the results of the 23 June vote—especially if the procedural flaws did not materially affect the outcome. A full re-run introduces further delays and governance uncertainty, with the court-appointed receiver remaining in control of Afrinic operations until the new vote is concluded. See also: AfriNIC's Vanishing Member register.

The postponement may offer an opportunity to address legitimate governance concerns, but it also raises questions about proportionality and the burden it places on an already strained institutional framework. For many, the priority now is restoring stability and functionality—something that may be better achieved by validating and addressing specific issues within the June election, rather than starting from scratch in September. See also: AFRINIC crisis: when receiver becomes legal risk.