AFRINIC’s Receiver: an officer of the Court who goes around it

A Receiver is an officer of the Court, appointed to hold the ring.

In September 2023 AFRINIC had four directors, too few for a board quorum, and no chief executive. On our application the Supreme Court found the orders we sought “fully justified, reasonable, and fair” and appointed the Official Receiver to preserve AFRINIC’s assets and the value of its business, and to see that elections are held under its constitution. It restrained AFRINIC from relocating, merging, restructuring or submitting to a takeover. The Receiver now in office was appointed by the Court on 12 February 2025.

The Receiver’s first task was an election under AFRINIC’s constitution.

In June 2025 he annulled the entire Board election over “one disputed proxy”, “silencing hundreds of valid votes”. His rules for the rerun banned the proxy voting that Article 12.12 of the constitution allows, and he obtained an extension of his mandate to 30 September 2025 without our knowledge or consent, though the receivership began on our application. We do not recognise the Board that came out of the disputed election of September 2025 as lawfully constituted.

The Receiver signed a promise to the Court.

In a written undertaking dated 10 June 2025, which he signed, AFRINIC undertook to rectify its records within 15 days of any order. The next day, on AFRINIC’s own application, the Court ordered AFRINIC to enter us in its register of members, and recorded that undertaking in its order. The 15 days passed without rectification. So we executed the judgment by praecipe of 2 October 2026, and the Registrar of Companies’ record lists us as a member from 9 October 2026.

When the Court’s order was carried out, the Receiver did not go back to the Court.

By a legal notice of 29 October 2026 he demanded that the Registrar of Companies remove us from the register at once, with copies to the Prime Minister, the ICT Minister, the Attorney General and the State Law Office. He cited no court order for it. A party who objects to an order of the Supreme Court must apply to the Court, seek a stay or appeal, and a Receiver, an officer of the Court, is no exception. We are confident that the authorities will decline to be drawn into a matter the Supreme Court has already decided. Court orders are changed in court, not by a Receiver’s letter.

The Receiver has asked the Court to release him and to declare his election valid.

In SC/COM/MOT/000757/2025, AFRINIC and the Receiver seek his discharge, the end of the receivership and a declaration that the September candidates were validly appointed. We oppose it. The receivership was there to deliver an election under AFRINIC’s constitution, and our case is that it has not delivered one. An application for validation is not an order granting it.

An officer of the Court answers to the Court.

Our communiqué of 3 November 2026 sets out four steps. We will bring the Receiver’s conduct before the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court, which appointed him, and seek contempt sanctions, directions, costs and his removal; file a formal complaint with the Director of Insolvency; notify the Registrar of Companies not to entertain his request to remove us, since our entry rests on the Court’s orders and rule; and respectfully ask the Prime Minister for an investigation, within the Companies Act, into AFRINIC’s membership. We have confidence in the independence of the judiciary and the institutions of Mauritius.