Summary

  • As of AFRINIC's latest public governance announcement, dated 24 August 2026, the registry is still operating under a dual control surface: the Board of Directors elected on 12 September 2025 acts alongside court-appointed Receiver Mr Gowtamsingh Dabee, whose consent is recorded as required for the appointment of CEO-designate Mike Silber (AFRINIC communiqué, 24 August 2026).
  • The Receiver filed an application to terminate the receivership on 8 October 2025; as of AFRINIC's 12 March 2026 member update the application had been heard and judgment was awaited, and the Receiver was still approving IP address allocations and assignments in the interim (Board–Receiver communiqué; AFRINIC member update, 12 March 2026).
  • On 14 May 2026 the Supreme Court of Mauritius issued an interim order against Cloud Innovation Ltd over statements AFRINIC characterises as falsely implying judicial sanction of IP-resource leasing, and granted ICANN leave to intervene as a party in Cloud Innovation's winding-up petition SC/COM/PET/000508/2025 (AFRINIC communiqué, 15 May 2026); Cloud Innovation and its subsidiary Larus dispute that characterisation and say they were not formally served (The Register, 27 May 2026).
  • AFRINIC's audited 2025 annual report states the Board assumed office on 15 September 2025, lists the eight elected directors, and confirms the CEO seat remained vacant through 2025 under an Interim Management Committee (AFRINIC Annual Report 2025).

The question this article answers is not who is right in the underlying dispute between AFRINIC and Cloud Innovation Ltd (CIL). It is narrower and, for anyone depending on the African number-resource system, more important: which instruments actually confer authority today, on whom, and who can still challenge the results.

The instrument that started this: a court order, not a board vote

AFRINIC Ltd is a Mauritian company that also functions as the regional internet registry for Africa. Its corporate governance is therefore subject to Mauritian company law and to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, independently of anything the registry's own bylaws say. Since 2022, successive receivers have been appointed by that court — a fact AFRINIC's own 2025 annual report acknowledges when it describes a "governance vacuum before the Board's reconstitution, including the appointment of successive receivers by the Supreme Court of Mauritius" (AFRINIC Annual Report 2025).

The person in the role now is Mr Gowtamsingh Dabee. His power does not derive from AFRINIC's bylaws or from member votes; it derives from the court order that appointed him. That single distinction explains most of what looks strange about AFRINIC's 2025–2026 governance record. A receiver exercises powers the court has given him over the company's administration. A board exercises powers the bylaws give it over the company's direction. In 2026 AFRINIC publishes decisions signed by both.

The board election: what happened and what is still contested

On 12 September 2025, the Chair of the 2025 Nomination Committee announced the results of the AFRINIC Board election. The eight elected members were: Abdelaziz Hilali (Northern Africa), Prof Emmanuel Adewale Adedokun (Western Africa), Kaleem Ahmed Usmani (Indian Ocean), Kayemba Laurent Ntumba (Central Africa), Carla Sanderson (Southern Africa), Fiona Asonga (Eastern Africa), Benjamin Mark Roberts (Non-Regional) and Ajao Adewole David (Non-Regional) (AFRINIC announcement, 12 September 2025). Shortly afterwards the Board announced Adedokun as Chairman and Hilali as Vice-Chairman (Board announcement).

The audited annual report adds a date detail that matters for legitimacy analysis: it says the Board "assumed office on 15 September 2025", while its seat table dates each director's appointment to 12 September 2025 (AFRINIC Annual Report 2025). The three-day gap is trivial in itself, but it is the kind of detail a court will read precisely, and CIL's lawyers have already shown they read precisely: legal filings have sought to invalidate the appointment of the directors elected in September 2025, and CIL has also objected to the creation of the Bylaws Review Committee and to bylaw amendments (AFRINIC member update, 12 March 2026).

So the election is real, it happened, its results were published, and its validity is formally disputed. That combination — a functioning institution whose authority is under active challenge — is the defining condition of AFRINIC's 2026.

The receivership that would not close

Receiverships end when the court discharges the receiver. On 8 October 2025, Mr Dabee filed an "Application for Termination of Receivership" before the Supreme Court (Bankruptcy Division) of Mauritius. The joint Board–Receiver communiqué describing that filing was explicit about what it did and did not accomplish: the application initiated the process for his formal release, "a decision of the Court is awaited", and Mr Dabee agreed to continue supporting AFRINIC in implementing the necessary steps following the appointment of Directors until his formal discharge (Board–Receiver communiqué, October 2025).

By 12 March 2026, AFRINIC's member update recorded the state of play: the discharge application had been heard and judgment was awaited; CIL objected to the discharge and called for the appointment of another receiver; and the Receiver continued approving IP address allocations and assignments that went through the application process (AFRINIC member update, 12 March 2026). The same update notes that CIL argued before the courts that the receiver acted outside his authority in enabling provision of IP number resources, and that CIL filed an application seeking to prevent AFRINIC from allocating IP resources, which AFRINIC says it is resisting.

The most recent evidence in the public record cuts the other way from closure. The 24 August 2026 communiqué announcing Mike Silber as CEO-designate was issued by "the AFRINIC Board of Directors and the Receiver" and states the appointment was made "with the consent of the Receiver" (AFRINIC communiqué, 24 August 2026). Whatever the court eventually decides, as of that date the consent function persisted. No public discharge judgment has been located as of publication.

The 14 May 2026 orders and the ICANN intervention

Two things happened in the Supreme Court on 14 May 2026, according to AFRINIC's 15 May communiqué. First, the Court issued an interim order against Cloud Innovation Ltd, which AFRINIC describes as following the publication of false and misleading statements through its subsidiary Larus Ltd — statements that, per AFRINIC, incorrectly represented that the Supreme Court had sanctioned or otherwise authorised the leasing of AFRINIC-allocated internet number resources. Second, in the winding-up petition CIL filed against AFRINIC in July 2025 (matter SC/COM/PET/000508/2025), the Court granted an order formally allowing ICANN to intervene as a party (AFRINIC communiqué, 15 May 2026).

Both characterisations come from AFRINIC, a litigant. The communiqué links two redacted court PDFs, and the mailing-list record shows AFRINIC re-issued the text after retracting an earlier version, swapping which PDF was attributed to the interim order (mailing-list copy; attachment copy showing the correction). CIL and Larus, per The Register's 27 May 2026 reporting, dispute AFRINIC's characterisation of the order and say they were not formally served with it (The Register).

Two features deserve emphasis. First, the ICANN intervention is an order about party status in the winding-up petition — it puts ICANN inside the courtroom, not on the merits. Second, an interim order about statements is not a merits judgment about resource recovery. The underlying question that started this dispute in 2021 — whether CIL's allocated resources were properly revoked — remains, on the public record, undecided.

Whether allocation authority is intact

For network operators, the operative question is simpler than any of the governance disputes: can the registry still allocate addresses, and will those allocations hold? The public record gives a qualified yes. The Receiver was approving allocations that came through the application process as of March 2026 (member update), and CIL's application to prohibit allocation was, per AFRINIC, being resisted rather than granted. AFRINIC's communiqué of 15 May 2026 states that number resources are governed by applicable registration policies, the contractual framework and RIR principles, and that any representation suggesting judicial sanctioning of arrangements outside that framework is denied unless expressly determined by a competent court (AFRINIC communiqué).

The qualification is real, though: allocations are being approved under a control surface that no court has yet finally validated or dismantled, and one litigant is actively seeking to stop them. Operators can verify today's practice but cannot yet rely on a judicially settled answer to who was entitled to approve what.

What is still open

As of 26 September 2026, the public record does not answer: whether the Court has discharged the Receiver; whether the challenge to the September 2025 directors has been decided; what became of CIL's allocation-prohibition application; and whether the 14 May 2026 interim order is final or contested. The registry's operational continuity and its governance legitimacy are being carried simultaneously by instruments that point in slightly different directions — and that is the fact on which every reader of this story should fix.

Sources and references