A Canadian Federal Court has upheld a controversial ruling classifying Nigeria’s two largest political parties – the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – as terrorist organisations, triggering strong reactions from Nigerian political leaders and raising concerns about international diplomatic relations.
The Court Decision
Justice Phuong Ngo delivered the judgment on June 17, 2025, in the case of Douglas Egharevba, a former member of both Nigerian political parties who was denied asylum in Canada. The Federal Court dismissed Egharevba’s application for judicial review after immigration authorities found him inadmissible under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Egharevba had been a PDP member from 1999 to 2007 before joining the APC until 2017. After moving to Canada in September 2017, his political affiliations were flagged by immigration authorities based on intelligence reports linking both parties to electoral violence and politically motivated killings.
The Immigration Appeal Division based its decision primarily on the PDP’s alleged conduct during the 2003 state elections and 2004 local government polls, citing ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and violence against opposition supporters. The tribunal concluded that party leadership benefited from the violence and failed to prevent it, meeting Canada’s legal definition of subversion.
Under Canadian law, mere membership in an organisation linked to terrorism or democratic subversion is sufficient grounds for inadmissibility, even without proof of personal involvement in violent activities.
PDP’s Response
PDP Deputy National Youth Leader Timothy Osadolor strongly criticized the ruling, calling it “unfounded and unjustified.” Speaking to reporters in Abuja, he emphasized that both Nigeria and Canada are democracies and such serious allegations should be handled with greater care.
“There’s nothing to show that even the malfunctioning APC is a terrorist organization or the PDP, which is a credible institution,” Osadolor stated. He acknowledged that while some individuals within the APC-led government might have questionable connections, it was wrong to label entire political parties as terrorist groups.
Osadolor urged Canadian authorities to focus on specific allegations against individuals rather than making broad accusations against political institutions that have participated in Nigeria’s democratic process for decades.
Diplomatic and Legal Concerns
Former NNPC Corporate Communications Officer Olufemi Soneye described the ruling as a “political earthquake” with potentially far-reaching consequences. He warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent that could affect democratic institutions globally.
“If democratic nations don’t push back on this kind of overreach, they may one day find their own politics on trial in a foreign court,” Soneye cautioned in a detailed statement.
He highlighted several concerning implications:
For Nigerian Citizens: The ruling could lead to increased scrutiny, visa denials, and rejected asylum claims for Nigerians who have ever held party membership cards, not only in Canada but potentially in other Western democracies that might follow suit.
For Democracy: Labeling established political parties as terrorist organizations undermines their legitimacy and blurs the vital distinction between political dissent and genuine security threats. This could be used as a tool to silence opposition and suppress political participation.
For International Relations: The decision risks damaging Canada-Nigeria diplomatic relations by equating the country’s core democratic institutions with extremist groups.
Broader Impact on Nigerian Youth
Soneye expressed particular concern about the impact on young Nigerians, both at home and in the diaspora, who could be branded as “terrorists” solely for their political affiliations. He warned that this could discourage legitimate political participation among youth, who are essential for democratic renewal.
“The prospect of visa denials, asylum rejections, or routine travel scrutiny will chill legitimate political participation among youths who are the lifeblood of party renewal,” he noted.
Global Democratic Implications
The ruling raises broader questions about the role of foreign courts in defining the legitimacy of political organizations in other democracies. Critics argue that allowing courts in one country to classify mainstream political parties from another democracy as terrorist organizations could undermine democratic institutions worldwide.
“When courts begin deciding which foreign political parties are ‘terrorists,’ the erosion of democracy is no longer theoretical—it has begun,” Soneye warned, calling the decision “not merely Canada’s internal immigration matter” but “a global warning.”
The controversy highlights the complex intersection of immigration law, international relations, and democratic governance, with potential implications extending far beyond the individual case that triggered the ruling.
