AFRINIC election crisis triggered by one proxy: The phantom vote that spiraled out of control

• A disputed proxy vote led AFRINIC to stop its 2025 board elections and later cancel the results, even though hundreds of members had already voted.
• ICANN and other global internet governance groups are now asking for answers. They also warned they may step in if AFRINIC does not show clear and open action.

The ‘phantom proxy’ vote: Origin, timeline, dispute

AFRINIC, the African Network Information Centre based in Mauritius, held its long-delayed board election on 23 June 2025. Hundreds of members participated, many assigning voting rights via powers of attorney (POAs) to proxies. The most prominent proxy collector was Number Resource Limited (NRL), a firm representing dozens of small African internet resource holders.

Just minutes before polls closed, AFRINIC’s Nomination Committee (NomCom) abruptly halted voting. The cited cause: questions about the validity of a single proxy vote. AFRINIC staff reportedly contacted a resource holder. See also: AfriNIC board faces legitimacy test.

The so-called “phantom proxy” immediately cast doubt on hundreds of ballots handled via POAs. The logic behind this decision has since drawn sharp criticism. A single questionable proxy vote, unverified through any formal audit, was used to cast doubt on hundreds of legitimate ballots. NRL stated that it had managed to cast only 20% of its total proxies before the vote was stopped, meaning the overwhelming majority of its members’ votes were never exercised. Many delegates, mostly from smaller or under-resourced African networks, lost their right to vote though they did nothing wrong. See also: AFRINIC crisis: when receiver becomes legal risk.

Stopping a continental election because of one unresolved query has been called by stakeholders a response that was too strong, not reasonable, and not in line with democratic values. Some critics say the process could still have stayed fair if the vote had gone ahead and the questionable ballot had been looked into after.Instead, the decision to suspend was seen by many as a political manoeuvre that undermined the rights of AFRINIC’s broader membership and effectively silenced hundreds of compliant, legitimate voices. See also: AfriNIC's Vanishing Member register.

As the saying goes: “You don’t burn down the house because one window might be cracked.” Yet that’s exactly what NomCom did — halting the process designed to bring AFRINIC back to democratic legitimacy, all because of one contested form that could have easily been investigated post-election.

Who raised the alarm and why

NomCom, led by Simon Davenport KC, initiated the halt after fielding the staff report. The alarm appears to have been raised by AFRINIC’s internal election committee staff, who contacted a member directly to verify the POA. This real-time challenge, though well-intentioned, derailed the election process before any post-vote audit could occur.

Who stood to gain from the suspension?

NRL, which had only cast 20% of its proxy votes at the time of the halt, stated that the vast majority of its members’ ballots were never exercised. Many of these were small or remote African ISPs who depend on proxies to participate. Observers say that suspending the election midway disproportionately disenfranchised those reliant on third-party representation.

Meanwhile, accusations emerged that foreign delegates allegedly linked to fraudulent proxy activities left Mauritius hastily after the incident. Local outlet L’Express reported investigations into two non-Mauritian nationals, suggesting the suspension may have served other agendas.

Reaction from NomCom and election committee

NomCom’s decision was swift, but its handling has drawn criticism. Rather than segregating the single disputed vote and proceeding with a broader verification post-count, NomCom chose to pause the entire process. On 26 June, AFRINIC’s Official Receiver, Vikash Dabee, formally annulled the election. In his public statement, Dabee cited “expressions of concern regarding potential irregularities,” and promised to request court permission to rerun the vote under more rigorous oversight.

Was this a trigger or a scapegoat?

What began as a single dispute spiralled into the invalidation of hundreds of legitimate votes. Critics question why one unverified POA — justified the annulment of an entire election.

Industry groups like ISPA South Africa and AFStar confirmed they had discovered POAs used without member consent. But it is still not clear if these incidents happened on their own or were part of a bigger problem. AFRINIC chose to stop the whole process instead of checking each questionable vote one by one, and this has made some people question if there was outside political pressure or if the process was taken over in some way.

Also read: As ICANN threatens to ‘review’ AFRINIC, an elected board is its only hope for survival
Also read: The story of AFRINIC: How Africa’s internet ideal was destroyed from within

Why it’s important

AFRINIC holds the exclusive mandate to allocate IP addresses for all 54 African countries. Its elections are not just internal affairs — they shape how internet infrastructure is governed across the continent.

Since 2022, AFRINIC has worked without a full board or CEO, and has been under court-ordered receivership. The 2025 election was set up to bring back trust. But instead, it made the crisis worse. The global internet oversight group ICANN gave a strong 24-hour warning asking for answers. It said that if the problems went on, it might need to look again at AFRINIC’s role. ICANN also said it could ask another Regional Internet Registry (RIR) to take care of African IP resources for a short time — something that has never happened before and would weaken AFRINIC’s control.

In terms of money, not having strong leadership could make it harder to send out new IPs or finish contracts. If people stop trusting AFRINIC’s system, internet providers and networks in Africa might wait longer to get what they need, which would raise costs and slow down growth.This whole event also makes people wonder if the idea of community-led control still works. AFRINIC was made so that Africans could manage their own internet future. But if just one proxy vote can stop everything, people have to ask if the current rules still make sense.