- AFRINIC, the African Network Information Centre responsible for managing internet number resources across Africa, recently sparked controversy by suspending its board election after a suspicious proxy vote was discovered.
- Though the so-called “ghost vote” was never cast, the decision to halt the entire election process has drawn widespread criticism and raised serious concerns about AFRINIC’s motivations.
AFRINIC election ghost vote incident
AFRINIC plays a central role in managing IP addresses for the African continent. Its members elect the organization’s leadership. This year, officials identified a suspicious proxy vote. Despite the vote not being used, AFRINIC halted the entire election process. Many members and candidates have since voiced their frustration, arguing that AFRINIC’s response was excessive and unfair.
Instead of discarding the invalid vote, AFRINIC invalidated the entire election. Critics believe the organization could have simply removed the suspicious vote and let the election proceed. Therefore, the abrupt decision has led many to question AFRINIC’s commitment to fairness.
Also read: The story of AFRINIC: How Africa’s internet ideal was destroyed from within
Also read: AFRINIC staff violated obligations during 2025 election
Why the overreaction?
AFRINIC’s reaction has sparked significant debate. Critics argue that halting the election over one unused vote was a disproportionate response. Had AFRINIC truly prioritized election integrity, they could have simply removed the problematic vote without canceling everything.
By suspending the entire process, AFRINIC has prompted questions about its motivations. Some believe the organization was attempting to influence the election outcome, particularly if certain candidates were losing. The suspension may have given those in power more time to intervene.
Widespread frustration from candidates and members
Candidates and AFRINIC members have strongly criticized the election suspension. Several board candidates claim that the cancellation was a strategic move to prevent their victory. Many of AFRINIC’s members, which include organizations and businesses, feel that their right to vote was unfairly taken away.
Experts agree that the ghost vote could not have changed the election’s results. Since no one cast the suspicious vote, it had no impact. This reinforces the perception that AFRINIC’s response was excessive.
Hidden motives?
Some believe that AFRINIC’s suspension wasn’t motivated by election fairness but by a desire to maintain control over its leadership. The organization has faced internal disputes over who should lead. Those resisting change may have seen the suspension as a way to delay new leadership.
AFRINIC’s own policies call for fair and transparent elections. By canceling the entire election for such a minor issue, the organization risks violating its own rules. This could lead to legal challenges if members or candidates decide to take action.
What comes next for AFRINIC?
AFRINIC now faces a serious trust crisis. Its members question whether the organization acts in their best interests. To restore credibility, AFRINIC must take several steps:
- Clarify the Justification for the Suspension — AFRINIC should provide clear evidence for its decision to suspend the election. The current explanation leaves many unconvinced.
- Ensure Future Elections Are Fair — AFRINIC must take measures to prevent future election manipulation. This will require more oversight and stronger safeguards.
- Address Member Concerns — AFRINIC’s members are crucial to its success. Ignoring their frustration could deepen the divide. AFRINIC must engage with its members and restore their trust.
A controversial overreaction or a strategic power play?
AFRINIC’s decision to suspend its election due to one unused vote raises serious questions. While election integrity is important, the action appears overly harsh. Some see it as an attempt to control the election outcome rather than ensure fairness.
If AFRINIC wants to regain trust, it must provide a clear explanation and show that future elections will be transparent. If it fails to act, it risks damaging its credibility for years to come.
