Summary

  • Mauritius designated AFRINIC a declared company on 18 July 2025 and required the Registrar of Companies to initiate an inspector investigation and report.
  • Four days later, AFRINIC and its court-appointed Receiver welcomed the directive, promised full cooperation and said the process would clarify the registry’s operational and governance status.
  • AFRINIC said on 12 March 2026 that the declared-company designation remained in force while the Receiver’s discharge judgment was still awaited.
  • The fixed public packet does not identify the inspector, scope, evidence-preservation record, process stage, report status, publication decision or remediation owner.
  • The law makes full publication discretionary, so the defensible demand is a confidentiality-safe status ledger—not an invented deadline or an accusation that no investigation occurred.

A statutory order created an evidence chain

The starting point is not a campaign statement or an institutional slogan. It is the Mauritius Government Gazette.

General Notice No. 1045, dated 18 July 2025, designated African Network Information Centre Ltd, in receivership, a “declared company” under section 230 of the Companies Act. Its operative wording says the Prime Minister considered an investigation expedient in the public interest. It then enjoins the Registrar of Companies to “immediately require” a suitably qualified inspector to investigate AFRINIC’s affairs and make a report in the form and manner the Registrar directs.

The notice also contains severe recitals. It says the Prime Minister had been informed or advised about extensive litigation, a winding-up petition, questions over the receivership process, two successive receivers’ failure to complete a Board election within court timeframes, interrupted allocation and reputational damage to Mauritius.

Those recitals matter because they explain why the statutory mechanism was engaged. They must also remain properly attributed. They are not findings by the eventual inspector, a criminal court or this briefing.

The harder news question begins after the order: what became of the investigation and its report?

AFRINIC and the Receiver made a public promise

AFRINIC answered the Gazette four days later. Its 22 July communiqué acknowledged and welcomed the directive, reaffirmed compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements and stated that the Court-appointed Receiver and AFRINIC team would cooperate fully with the inspector appointed by the Registrar.

The communiqué went further. It said the process would clarify AFRINIC’s operational and governance status. It closed with a commitment to provide updates as developments unfolded. Gowtamsingh Dabee signed it as Court-appointed Receiver.

That response is counterevidence against any careless claim that AFRINIC publicly rejected the investigation. It did the opposite. The commitment is valuable precisely because it creates a testable public baseline: cooperation, clarification and future updates.

At the 14 August 2026 cutoff, 388 days had elapsed since that statement. Elapsed time is not a statutory breach. The reviewed provisions set no public completion deadline. It is, however, enough time for readers to ask for the status of the promise without pretending to know the answer.

AFRINIC says the designation still exists

The March 2026 member update supplies one later data point. AFRINIC said the declared-company designation “remains in force as at date.” It also said the persons announced as directors had resumed duty and were collaborating with the Receiver pending his formal discharge. Judgment on the discharge application, AFRINIC said, was still awaited.

Its accusations against Cloud Innovation Ltd, LARUS and advocacy campaigns remain attributed claims, not inspector findings in the fixed packet.

More important is what the update does not connect. It says the statutory status remained alive, yet does not name the inspector, identify an appointment date, state the non-privileged scope, describe evidence preservation or cooperation events, say whether an interim report was directed, state whether a final report reached AFRINIC’s registered office, or record a publication decision.

AFRINIC’s Governance page presents a Board, committees and documents, but does not reconcile them with the still-in-force declared-company process. A governance chart is not an investigation-status record.

What the Companies Act actually requires

The law supplies a precise sequence and an equally important limit.

Section 229 says an inspector under Part XV must be a qualified auditor with at least five years’ post-qualification experience or a person who holds or has held judicial office. Section 230 provides the designation grounds, including public interest. Section 231 says the Registrar shall require an inspector to investigate every declared company and make a report as directed.

Section 233 then separates interim, final and public reporting. An inspector may make interim reports and must do so if the Registrar directs. A copy of a final report must, subject to the stated exception, be sent to the Registrar and to the company’s registered office. The Registrar may cause the report to be published when the Registrar considers publication necessary in the public interest.

“May” matters. The reviewed text does not establish an automatic public right to the complete report. Nor does it allow this briefing to assert that a final report exists, that one is overdue or that a publication duty has been breached.

But the registered-office rule matters too. If the final stage has been reached, AFRINIC is not a stranger to the result. Its registered office is one of the statutory destinations. The organisation can therefore account for the process stage without disclosing protected substance or usurping the Registrar’s publication decision.

Silence cannot be converted into clearance

The fixed packet proves a public information gap; it does not prove an investigative failure.

There may be an appointed inspector whose identity has not been placed on the reviewed pages. Work may be ongoing. Interim material may be confidential. A final report may not yet exist. A report may exist but publication may not have been authorised. Evidence may involve witnesses, personal data, legal advice, court restrictions or procedural fairness. None of those possibilities can be resolved by guesswork.

The same discipline applies in the other direction. The purported Board, Receiver and institutional supporters cannot treat public silence as proof that AFRINIC was cleared, the receivership was vindicated, the September 2025 election was validated, the Companies Register settled every appointment question, or later governance acts became lawful.

Nor can the declared-company label validate the US$3.29 million in legal expenditure calculated by NRS from AFRINIC’s disclosures, the historical US$1,000 hourly term highlighted in NRS’s member action, the authority for individual invoices, or the current transfer-policy ratification. An inspector process and a transaction-authority record are different evidence layers.

NRS argues that register filings are not judicial validation and calls for a separate independent forensic investigation into legal spending and authority. That is a member-side legal position, not an inspector or court finding. Its evidentiary demand is still relevant: no official label should be stretched beyond what its supporting record proves.

Sources

Further reading