Summary

  • AFRINIC's second constitutional consultation opened on 4 August and closes on 21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC; the proposed text is not in force.
  • The operative Constitution requires a Director with an actual or potential conflict to disclose it and recuse from voting.
  • Draft Article 19.13 would cover more people and perceived conflicts, but would leave the Board to write, enforce and review the detailed policy without itself preserving the no-vote command.
  • Mauritius Companies Act section 152 permits an interested Director of a private company to vote after disclosure, subject to the company's Constitution.
  • The draft therefore broadens the policy's reach while moving its hardest restraint from a member-approved constitutional rule into Board-controlled procedure.

One missing verb changes the control surface

AFRINIC's proposed conflict-of-interest reform looks broader until the current and proposed texts are placed side by side.

The Constitution now in force is direct. Article 15.5 requires a Director to disclose a potential or actual conflict in a matter before the Board. It then says the Director shall recuse from voting where the conflict exists or may exist. The remaining Directors may also exclude that person from the discussion.

The second consultation draft, published on 4 August, relocates conflict rules to Article 19.13. It requires the Board to establish, maintain and periodically review a company-wide policy. That policy must address actual, potential and perceived conflicts affecting Directors, officers, employees, committee members and anyone acting for AFRINIC. The expansion is real: the current constitutional clause is largely confined to Directors, while the draft reaches the rest of the institutional chain.

Yet the proposed Constitution no longer says that a conflicted Director must abstain. It requires identification, disclosure, assessment, management and, “where appropriate”, mitigation. The Board would take reasonable steps to enforce the policy and would review its effectiveness. The same organ whose decisions are being controlled would therefore write the detailed rule, police compliance and judge whether it remains adequate.

The draft is not operative. AFRINIC says comments, external legal review and committee recommendations precede Board approval and a Special General Members Meeting. The news is a proposed relocation of authority, not a completed change.

Mauritius law makes the hierarchy matter

AFRINIC is a private company limited by guarantee. That legal form gives the constitutional wording practical weight.

Section 148 of the Mauritius Companies Act requires a Director to disclose an interest in a transaction to the Board and, where the company has an interests register, to enter it there. Non-disclosure can be an offence, although the section says failure does not by itself invalidate the transaction.

Section 152 then draws a sharp distinction. An interested Director of a public company may not vote on the transaction. In a private company, however, an interested Director may vote after making the required disclosure. The Director may also attend, count toward the quorum, sign the document and otherwise act in relation to the transaction. Crucially, the section begins by making that default subject to the company's Constitution.

AFRINIC's present Article 15.5 uses that constitutional space to impose a harder rule: disclosure is not enough; the Director must recuse from voting. If the draft were adopted unchanged, Article 19.13 would no longer itself provide that command. A later policy, another binding instrument or case-specific law could still require abstention. The frozen record cannot predict that outcome. But the location of the restraint would have changed from a member-approved constitutional provision to a document the Board controls.

That is not semantic. A constitutional rule fixes the minimum before a transaction reaches the Board; a policy can be amended, unpublished or interpreted beyond members’ view. The test is whether the decisive actor's vote is disabled before integrity is tested.

The draft deserves credit for what it adds

The explanatory note says the new framework responds to conflicts arising throughout the organisation rather than only among Directors. That is a serious improvement. Staff can shape procurement and implementation. Committee members can influence nominations, audits and policy. Officers can authorize transactions and supervise records. Perceived conflicts also matter because confidence can be damaged even where no material interest is ultimately proved.

Draft Article 19.10 adds another useful safeguard. Once Board minutes are approved, AFRINIC would have to publish them, or an appropriate redacted version, as soon as reasonably practicable. Public minutes can expose disclosure, abstention and vote treatment if those elements are recorded.

Neither clause completes the transaction trail. Article 19.13 does not require a public policy, annual declarations, agenda-item disclosures, recorded recusal, or vote and quorum data. It names no independent reviewer. Article 19.10 has no fixed publication clock or redaction index.

Those are bounded omissions in the draft, not evidence that a named Director has a conflict. The record does not show that any current Director concealed an interest, voted improperly, broke the law or received a benefit. It also does not show that the Receiver or the people presented as the current Board authored Article 19.13 or acted from an improper motive.

Sources

Further reading