After three years of courtroom battles, annulled elections and frozen bank accounts, the African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC) has finally elected a new board. The moment offers hope that Africa’s only internet registry can reclaim its role. But legitimacy remains fragile, political pressure is heavy, and the board must now act decisively to restore confidence, shield the institution, and safeguard Africa’s digital sovereignty.
A chair to unite and a CEO to steer
The very first test of AfriNIC’s new board is leadership. For more than three years the organisation has lived without it. The long legal battles with Cloud Innovation, the frozen bank accounts and the shadow of a court appointed Receiver created a vacuum at the very top. During this period AfriNIC survived only because its professional staff kept the registry running. They allocated numbers, answered members and preserved continuity in the face of paralysis. Their resilience is the reason AfriNIC is still alive today.
Now the board must provide the leadership that has been missing. The first step is to appoint a chairperson. This decision will define the character of the new board. The chair must not be chosen to reward business allies or to satisfy political backers. AfriNIC cannot afford a figure who will be seen as carrying the agenda of corporations or governments. What the registry needs at this delicate moment is a chair who is above suspicion, one who can guide the eight directors towards consensus and stability.
Experience matters. AfriNIC has been through repeated institutional shocks. Its chair must understand how boards function, how to manage conflicts of interest and how to maintain credibility in the eyes of members and partners. Previous experience on a board is therefore essential. A seasoned chair will know that compromise and neutrality are not signs of weakness but conditions for survival.
Among the eight newly elected directors there will be different perspectives, backgrounds and affiliations. Some will be closer to governments, some to industry and some to technical communities. That diversity can be AfriNIC’s strength, but only if it is managed carefully. The choice of chair must be an act of compromise among them, a recognition that unity is more important than dominance.
But leadership does not stop at the board table. AfriNIC also needs an executive head, and it needs one immediately. The new board must appoint an interim CEO to stabilise operations and re establish normal governance. This person should be an experienced manager, ideally selected from among AfriNIC’s senior staff who have already proven their ability to hold the organisation together during crisis. Such a choice would demonstrate continuity, restore internal morale and show the community that AfriNIC is back in the hands of those who serve it daily.
This decision also means closing the chapter of the Receiver. Gowtamsingh Dabee has been a controversial figure, accused of being power drunk and heavy handed in his administration. For many in the community he was never fully trusted, not least because of allegations that he was too close to Cloud Innovation, the very company whose aggressive litigation crippled AfriNIC in the first place. What began as an alliance is now a bitter feud, with Cloud Innovation itself filing cases that probe Dabee’s conduct.
It is therefore in AfriNIC’s interest, and in Dabee’s own, that he be formally discharged. He should have the time and space to answer those legal challenges without holding the keys to Africa’s only internet registry. By ending his mandate the board would liberate AfriNIC from an arrangement that has become more divisive than stabilising. The world is watching closely. Other regional registries, ICANN, governments and civil society will all look to see whether the new board can act responsibly.
Smart Africa’s heavy hand and the need for balance
The second question that the new AfriNIC board must face is the role of Smart Africa. Out of the 8 directors elected in September, 7 were endorsed by Smart Africa, the coalition of 40 African states that has championed digital transformation across the continent. This endorsement was not a small gesture. It was decisive, because without it AfriNIC might never have broken the paralysis that had left it unable to elect directors since 2022. The message was clear: African governments wanted the institution back on its feet.
The involvement of Smart Africa was also a sign of political maturity. For years, AfriNIC’s troubles were seen as the business of a narrow technical community. When lawsuits multiplied and elections failed, it became evident that the registry was not just another non profit organisation but a pillar of Africa’s digital sovereignty. Smart Africa’s decision to step in with endorsements was therefore a recognition that AfriNIC matters to the entire continent.
Yet the very weight that helped to revive AfriNIC now raises concerns. The fact that almost the entire board carries the stamp of Smart Africa risks creating the perception of dominance rather than partnership. AfriNIC is not supposed to be an extension of a government bloc. It is meant to be a neutral registry, serving governments, businesses, civil society and technical operators with equal impartiality. If the registry is seen as captured, its credibility will suffer both within Africa and in the global internet governance ecosystem.
The challenge is balance. Smart Africa deserves credit for mobilising political support at a time when AfriNIC’s survival was in doubt. But the new board must now demonstrate that it is able to govern independently. The first and most visible way to achieve this balance is through the choice of a chairperson. That person must be neutral, with no strong ties to business or political interests. Only a chair with independence and prior board experience can assure the community that decisions will be guided by the common interest rather than factional agendas.
Smart Africa also has an opportunity here to show restraint. Having played a decisive role in ending the stalemate, it can strengthen AfriNIC by allowing it to breathe. Its contribution should now shift from influencing internal leadership choices to providing external support. This means offering diplomatic cover when the registry faces litigation, rallying African states against attempts at institutional capture, and advocating for AfriNIC at international fora where its credibility is tested.
This balance is delicate but necessary. A heavy hand brought AfriNIC back to life. A lighter touch will allow it to mature and govern itself in the spirit of community consensus. If Smart Africa embraces this role, it will be remembered not only as the coalition that saved AfriNIC from collapse but also as the one that respected its independence and helped it to grow into a stronger continental institution.
Mauritius must choose protection or relocation
The third and perhaps most delicate question for AfriNIC’s new board is the organisation’s legal and political home. Since its creation in 2005 AfriNIC has been based in Mauritius, a country that has prided itself on being a hub for finance, information technology and international institutions. At the beginning this choice appeared sound. Mauritius offered political stability and a location that was central enough to serve Africa and the Indian Ocean region.
But the crisis of the last three years has revealed a structural weakness. Because AfriNIC is registered in Mauritius as an ordinary company it has been vulnerable to local litigation. Court cases initiated by Cloud Innovation and other actors froze its bank accounts and paralysed its decision making. The Supreme Court went so far as to appoint a Receiver, Gowtamsingh Dabee, who effectively took operational control away from the community and the members. Instead of offering a secure environment, Mauritius became the stage where AfriNIC’s independence was undermined.
The new board must address this problem head on. The government of Mauritius should be presented with two clear options. The first is to recognise AfriNIC as an international organisation with diplomatic privileges and immunities. This would protect it from destabilising lawsuits and political interference, while allowing it to continue operating from Mauritius with the neutrality that its role requires. Such an agreement would place AfriNIC on the same footing as other treaty based institutions hosted by African capitals and would reassure the community that history will not repeat itself.
If Mauritius cannot or will not provide this recognition, then AfriNIC must prepare for relocation. The registry can no longer afford to operate under constant legal threat. A move to another African country that is ready to host it as a treaty based organisation would provide the protections that are essential for its stability. Capitals like Addis Ababa, Kigali or Pretoria have the infrastructure, political weight and international profile to serve as hosts. What matters most is not the geography but the principle: AfriNIC must be beyond the reach of lawfare.
This is not a matter of hostility to Mauritius. The country has hosted AfriNIC for nearly two decades and it deserves recognition for that contribution. But the reality is that the global internet community has lost confidence in AfriNIC’s current legal framework. Even ICANN, which coordinates all regional registries, is now exploring policies that would allow it to intervene in a failing registry. If AfriNIC cannot show that it is institutionally secure, then external intervention may no longer be avoidable. Mauritius has a chance to make a historic choice.
Building a continental shield
Even with a new board, a neutral chairperson, and an interim chief executive, AfriNIC will remain vulnerable unless Africa as a whole mobilises to protect it. The crisis of the past three years has shown that the registry cannot be left exposed to endless litigation, political pressure or corporate manipulation. What is needed now is not only reform inside AfriNIC but also a shield around it, built by the entire continent.
This shield has several layers. The first is legal. AfriNIC must either secure diplomatic recognition in Mauritius or relocate to a host country willing to enshrine its status as an international organisation. Without such protection, every future dispute risks becoming a court battle capable of paralysing the registry once again.
The second layer is political. AfriNIC must be backed by African institutions that can provide cover when its neutrality is challenged. Smart Africa, the African Union, ECOWAS and other regional bodies should make it clear that the registry is a continental asset. They must stand together against attempts to capture it or to weaken it through what many have called lawfare. A united political voice will discourage those who might exploit legal loopholes or national courts for narrow interests.
The third layer is moral. AfriNIC must rebuild trust through transparency, accountability and inclusion. The community will support the registry only if it feels represented and respected. That means open processes for leadership appointments, clear communication about finances and litigation, and an honest effort to include operators, businesses, governments and civil society in decision making. Trust is not granted once and for all. It is earned and renewed through practice.
At the global level, AfriNIC must show that Africa is capable of managing its own digital commons. ICANN is already drafting a policy that would allow it to intervene in a failing regional registry. If AfriNIC does not recover quickly, it risks becoming the first case where external actors step in to reshape an African institution. That outcome would be a loss not only for AfriNIC but for Africa’s digital sovereignty as a whole. The opportunity now is to prove the opposite. By surrounding AfriNIC with a continental shield that is legal, political and moral, Africa can demonstrate that it has the maturity to protect its own critical infrastructure. The registry can emerge from crisis stronger, more accountable and more resilient.
Post Scriptum
There is one final matter that cannot be left in ambiguity. The very dispute that pushed AfriNIC into crisis was the case of Cloud Innovation and its contested holdings of millions of IPv4 addresses. Years of litigation, political manoeuvres and accusations created a climate of paralysis in which AfriNIC could not govern itself.
The new board must not continue this cycle. Its very first formal decision should be to confirm the deregistration of Cloud Innovation as a member of AfriNIC and to reclaim the addresses that belong to the registry. This is not only a legal necessity, it is a moral obligation to the community. The addresses were allocated under conditions that were judged inconsistent with the rules of fair use. Continuing to allow their retention undermines trust in AfriNIC’s mandate to manage resources for the benefit of all.
By closing this chapter, the board will send a powerful message. The nonsense that should never have started will finally end. AfriNIC will no longer be hostage to a single dispute. Instead, it will be free to focus on what it was created to do: to serve Africa’s internet community with fairness, transparency and responsibility.