ICANN Rejects African Court Rulings to Protect AFRINIC

ICANN Rejects African Court Rulings to Protect AFRINIC is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• ICANN faces backlash after dismissing African court rulings in favour of AFRINIC
• • Stakeholders accuse it of protecting AFRINIC for political reasons and undermining local legal authority

ICANN’s interference sparks outrage over regional sovereignty

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is facing sharp criticism after it openly dismissed the authority of African courts in the ongoing legal disputes involving AFRINIC, the continent’s Regional Internet Registry. ICANN’s statement claimed that recognising foreign legal rulings—particularly those from African jurisdictions—could “undermine the multistakeholder Internet governance model.”

This move has been widely interpreted as an attempt to shield AFRINIC from accountability. In a letter issued earlier this year, ICANN rejected enforcement of an injunction from the Supreme Court of Mauritius that sought to restrict AFRINIC’s unilateral actions pending litigation. Observers see this as ICANN’s direct intervention in a sovereign legal process—one that blatantly disrespects African institutions and due process.

Critics argue that ICANN’s posture is not only politically motivated but also a clear overreach of its role. “This is not about Internet governance; it’s about power and impunity,” said one stakeholder, pointing to ICANN board member Göran Marby’s and tripartite actors like Lindqvist’s long-standing alignment with AFRINIC’s embattled leadership.

Also read: Could a public audit save AFRINIC from collapse?
Also read: How AFRINIC’s board elections became a political battlefield

ICANN’s interference sparks outrage over regional sovereignty

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is facing sharp criticism after it openly dismissed the authority of African courts in the ongoing legal disputes involving AFRINIC, the continent’s Regional Internet Registry. ICANN’s statement claimed that recognising foreign legal rulings—particularly those from African jurisdictions—could “undermine the multistakeholder Internet governance model.”

This move has been widely interpreted as an attempt to shield AFRINIC from accountability. In a letter issued earlier this year, ICANN rejected enforcement of an injunction from the Supreme Court of Mauritius that sought to restrict AFRINIC’s unilateral actions pending litigation. Observers see this as ICANN’s direct intervention in a sovereign legal process—one that blatantly disrespects African institutions and due process.

Critics argue that ICANN’s posture is not only politically motivated but also a clear overreach of its role. “This is not about Internet governance; it’s about power and impunity,” said one stakeholder, pointing to ICANN board member Göran Marby’s and tripartite actors like Lindqvist’s long-standing alignment with AFRINIC’s embattled leadership.