In a startling decision that has rocked diplomatic circles and ignited intense backlash, the Canadian Federal Court has upheld a ruling classifying Nigeria’s two major political parties; the All-Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as terrorist organizations under Canadian law. The case, Egharevba v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1093, stemmed from an asylum application but extended far beyond that single petitioner.
What Happened: The Egharevba Case & Ruling
• Douglas Egharevba, a former Nigerian politician affiliated with both PDP (1999–2007) and later the APC until 2017, filed for asylum in Canada, claiming political persecution.
• The Canadian Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) deemed Egharevba inadmissible under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), asserting that mere membership in APC or PDP implicated him in systemic political violence, electoral subversion, and “terrorism” broadly construed.
• Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo of the Federal Court upheld the IAD’s decision, finding that both parties have historically engaged in acts — such as ballot rigging, voter intimidation, election violence and killings of opposition supporters — that, under Canadian law, amount to subversive or terrorist conduct.
• The Court held that even absent direct personal involvement, membership in the named parties could serve as grounds for inadmissibility under IRPA § 34(1)(f) and related provisions.
Diplomatic Shockwaves & Nigeria’s Response
Unsurprisingly, the ruling sparked an immediate diplomatic storm:
• The Nigerian Federal Government condemned the judgment as a “grave misrepresentation” of Nigeria’s democracy and demanded its reversal. A government statement emphasized Nigeria’s sovereignty and constitutional system of political accountability.
• The PDP likewise denounced the decision, labeling it “misinformed, biased, and lacking evidence,” and urged that it be rejected without delay.
• The APC, through its spokesperson Bayo Onanuga, issued a press statement insisting that the Canadian court “did not declare APC a terrorist organization”, attempting to contest the characterization.
• Legal commentators and civil society voices have warned that while the decision has no binding effect in Nigeria, it is no trivial symbolic act—it signals how far foreign jurisdictions might go in judging domestic political structures.
Why This Is Momentous
This is not merely a bureaucratic ruling. The implications reverberate across multiple dimensions:
1. International Stigma & Travel Risk
Any Nigerian who ever held formal membership in APC or PDP may now face heightened scrutiny in Canada (or other countries that adopt similar standards). Visa refusals, deportation, or asylum denial are real risks.
2. Political Legitimacy Under Fire
Branding flagship democratic parties as “terrorist” undercuts their international standing and legitimacy. In Western capitals, diplomacy may become awkward; foreign investors may treat Nigeria with increased caution.
3. Precedent for Judicial Overreach
The notion that a foreign court can define political parties — not individuals — as terrorist groups sets a dangerous precedent. Political affiliation is now dangerously close to criminal status in cross-border legal settings.
4. Pressure for Political Reform
Nigeria cannot simply dismiss this as “external meddling.” The ruling functions as a moral mirror, demanding introspection about the prevalence of election violence, impunity, and weak enforcement of democratic norms.
What’s Next: Damage Control & Opportunity
• Nigeria must pursue urgent diplomatic engagement with Canada—seek clarification, reversal, or stay of the ruling.
• Judicial review or appeals in Canada could be brought, particularly on jurisdictional grounds (i.e., APC/PDP not being parties to the original proceeding).
• Domestically, Nigeria’s leaders would be wise to accelerate electoral reforms, strengthen accountability, and visibly punish political violence to blunt foreign criticism.
• Other democracies, particularly Western immigration courts, may now consider analogous arguments based on the Canadian precedent—Nigerians abroad must monitor visa or asylum decisions closely.
Bottom Line
Canada’s Federal Court has slammed Nigeria with a legal verdict that redefines political life through the lens of security law. Macron, Trudeau, Brussels — none can now ignore that Nigeria’s political reputation is on trial abroad. The Nigerian state must respond decisively, not with denial, but with reform, defense, and renewed moral clarity.
