• Recent AFRINIC elections highlight tensions between judicial oversight in Mauritius and the will of its membership community.
  • Striking a balance between courts and members is critical to restoring credibility and ensuring Africa’s internet governance autonomy.

Court annulments continue to overshadow AFRINIC’s elections

Over the past three years, AFRINIC’s elections have been marked by heavy judicial involvement. In 2022, the Supreme Court of Mauritius declared AFRINIC’s board invalid, sparking a governance vacuum that left the organisation under receivership in 2023. More recently, the June 2025 elections were annulled due to disputes over proxy voting, despite members casting valid ballots. The Receiver’s intervention, justified by legal uncertainty, postponed the process until September. Although the September election concluded with new directors appointed, the reliance on court supervision underscored AFRINIC’s persistent fragility.

While judicial rulings aim to ensure compliance with law, repeated reliance on Mauritius’ courts has weakened perceptions of AFRINIC’s autonomy. Observers note that no other Regional Internet Registry has required such sustained legal intervention to validate elections. This dependence fuels doubts about whether AFRINIC is governed by community consensus or court mandates. For a body tasked with stewarding Africa’s internet resources, credibility cannot rest on litigation alone.

Also read:AFRINIC’s September elections were a flagrant violation of its own bylaws

Also read:Why AFRINIC’s election security needs stronger legal guarantees in Mauritius

Members vote but courts decide the outcome

AFRINIC was founded on the principle of bottom-up governance, where members—network operators, civil society, and businesses—shape policies collectively. Elections are a key expression of this process. Yet repeated annulments and disputes over Powers of Attorney (POAs) have left members questioning whether their votes truly matter. The annulment of the June 2025 ballot illustrated this dilemma: the community acted in good faith, only to see results discarded. The September outcome brought temporary relief but not lasting confidence.

Restoring balance requires protecting member participation while respecting legal frameworks. Courts should act as a safeguard against misconduct, not as the default arbiter of governance. Updating bylaws, clarifying electoral procedures, and enhancing transparency are critical steps. If AFRINIC cannot reconcile legal oversight with member-driven legitimacy, it risks eroding trust not only within Africa but also in global internet governance. A sustainable balance between judicial certainty and community will is the foundation for both Africa’s digital sovereignty and the trust of the wider internet ecosystem.