 |
| IXPN |
Nigeria, home to Africa’s largest population and one of its most dynamic digital economies, holds a meaningful share of the continent’s internet number resources yet remains underrepresented in the policy processes that determine how those resources are managed, allocated and protected.
Muhammed Rudman, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Exchange Point of Nigeria (IXPN), issued that warning at the Nigerian Communications Commission’s Internet Governance Symposium 2026, arguing that low engagement by Nigerian internet service providers, network operators, businesses and technical professionals is steadily eroding the country’s influence over critical infrastructure decisions.
Speaking at the symposium, which also saw the formal launch of an Internet Governance Working Group, Rudman focused on the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the regional internet registry responsible for distributing IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and autonomous system numbers across Africa and the Indian Ocean region. He urged stakeholders to treat participation in AFRINIC’s policy development process—and in broader bodies such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)—as a strategic necessity rather than an optional technical exercise.
“But unfortunately, we are not really participating when it comes to management of the IP resources in AfriNIC,” Rudman said. He noted that Nigeria ranks among the significant holders of internet resources on the continent, yet contributes relatively little to the debates and decisions that shape how those resources are governed.
RELATED POSTS
✒︎ World Bank and IMF Urge “Small AI” for Jobs and Growth as Nigeria Courts Investors Amid Reforms
✒︎ How Frictionless Payments Are Helping Nigeria’s SMEs Grow
✒︎ The vacuum Lisk’s exit leaves in Africa’s Web3 funding
The Stakes: Why IP Resources and Governance Matter
Internet Protocol addresses function as the numerical identifiers that allow devices, networks and services to find one another. They are finite (especially IPv4) and are managed through a hierarchical system that begins with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and flows through the five Regional Internet Registries. AFRINIC’s policies determine eligibility criteria, allocation sizes, transfer rules, recovery of unused space and the operational practices that affect routing security, reverse DNS and resource certification.
Decisions taken in those forums are not abstract.
They influence how quickly new operators can obtain addresses, the cost and complexity of expansions, the ability to support IPv6 transition, and the resilience of national networks against hijacking or misrouting. For a country whose digital economy depends on mobile money, e-commerce, cloud services, content delivery and growing artificial-intelligence workloads, the absence of a strong voice carries practical consequences.
Data from public RIR statistics illustrate Nigeria’s position. As of mid-October 2026, Nigeria held roughly 3.21 million IPv4 addresses—about 2.8 percent of AFRINIC’s total delegated space—placing it ninth among countries in the region, behind South Africa, Egypt, Morocco, Seychelles, Tunisia, Kenya, Algeria and Mauritius. In IPv6, measured in /48 blocks, Nigeria ranked ninth with approximately 8.7 million blocks, far behind South Africa and Egypt. These figures reflect historical allocation patterns, population size, market maturity and the intensity of past engagement with the registry.
Rudman recalled attending policy discussions on IP resource allocation in Angola in 2019 and encountering young Nigerians actively contributing—participants he did not recognise from the domestic industry. “I run the Internet Exchange Point of Nigeria, and I know all the major ISPs, and I happen to be part of NIRA, I know everybody that is related. And Nigerians were not there,” he said.
The experience raised questions about how Nigerian representation is organised and supported. He warned that organisations that stay outside the process risk implementing rules they had no hand in shaping. “If you participate in the policy process, you don’t get shock. You don’t get surprises.”
 |
| MD/CEO/IXPN — Muhammed Rudman |
Awareness Gaps and Structural Barriers
A survey presented at the same symposium by the NCC’s Head of Internet Governance, Dr. Ibiso Kingsley George, provided quantitative backing for Rudman’s concerns. Drawing responses from 47 organisations across industry, academia and civil society—including mobile network operators, ISPs and academic institutions—the survey found that 40 percent of respondents had never participated in any internet governance process.
About 53 percent reported some engagement with the Nigeria Internet Governance Forum, while a smaller share had been active in the preceding two to three years. Lack of awareness was cited by a majority (around 66 percent in related reporting) as the primary barrier. Other obstacles included the absence of internal mandates, limited executive support, unclear business benefits, perceived technical complexity, time commitments and cost.
These findings point to a structural problem. Many Nigerian operators prioritise short-term commercial objectives—customer acquisition, spectrum auctions, infrastructure rollout—while treating policy engagement as a distant, specialist activity. Yet the long-term implications of resource scarcity, transfer markets, IPv6 readiness requirements and routing-security standards directly affect operating costs and competitiveness.
AFRINIC itself has faced significant institutional challenges in recent years. In May 2026 the Supreme Court of Mauritius appointed a Receiver to manage the company’s affairs, and subsequent leadership appointments have required the Receiver’s consent. The registry continues to provide core services, but the episode has underscored the importance of an informed, active membership that can help safeguard institutional continuity and policy legitimacy.
Pathways to Stronger Influence
Rudman outlined a multi-layered approach. Issues can be raised first in national forums such as the Nigerian Internet Governance Forum and the newly launched Internet Governance Working Group, then advanced to the West African Internet Governance Forum and the African Internet Governance Forum before feeding into global discussions at ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force or AFRINIC policy meetings. Many of these processes accept remote participation, reducing the cost barrier.
He specifically encouraged ISPs and network operators to engage with AFRINIC membership processes and policy development, and called on businesses to identify the governance bodies most relevant to their operations. Stronger collaboration between regulators and industry, modelled in part on Brazil’s multi-stakeholder internet governance arrangements, could help align national priorities with continental and global processes.
IXPN’s own trajectory offers a practical illustration of the value of sustained technical engagement. Marking its 20th anniversary in 2026 under the theme “20 Years of Building Nigeria’s Internet,” the exchange has expanded local traffic exchange, hosted critical infrastructure including AFRINIC’s DNS anycast node and other resolution services, and partnered on IPv6 capacity-building programmes. Traffic has grown substantially, with the organisation targeting higher localisation of Nigerian traffic by 2030 and positioning itself as a West African regional hub. These operational successes rest on the same technical community that Rudman argues must also show up in policy rooms.
Broader Context and the Cost of Absence
Nigeria’s digital ambitions—expanded broadband, data-centre growth, AI readiness, fintech scale and content localisation—depend on reliable, affordable and sovereign-capable internet infrastructure. Influence over the rules that govern number resources is one component of that sovereignty. When Nigerian voices are scarce in AFRINIC’s policy discussions, allocation criteria, transfer policies or recovery mechanisms may evolve without adequate consideration of the country’s market realities, population size or growth trajectory.
Other African economies with smaller absolute resource holdings sometimes punch above their weight through consistent attendance, well-prepared contributions and coordinated national positions. Conversely, large markets that remain largely silent risk becoming rule-takers. The NCC’s decision to launch a standing working group and to highlight the survey findings suggests recognition that awareness campaigns alone are insufficient; sustained institutional support, clearer articulation of business value, and incentives for executive-level engagement will be required.
Rudman’s intervention is not a prediction of immediate crisis but a call for preventive engagement. Internet governance operates on long cycles. Policies drafted today shape the operating environment for the next decade. By the time surprises arrive—in the form of constrained allocations, unexpected transfer restrictions or new compliance obligations—the opportunity to shape them has already passed.
For Nigerian ISPs, content providers, data-centre operators, financial institutions with significant digital footprints, and the technical professionals who keep networks running, the practical next steps are straightforward: join the relevant membership and mailing lists, allocate staff time to policy reviews, support the national Internet Governance Forum and Working Group, and treat AFRINIC and ICANN processes as part of operational risk management rather than optional conferences. Greater participation will not guarantee that every Nigerian preference prevails, but it will ensure that the country’s scale, expertise and interests are at least present when Africa’s internet resources are discussed and decided.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Politics and Technology.
Post a Comment