In a precedent-setting judgment, the Federal Court of Canada affirmed that Nigeria’s two dominant parties — the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) — have engaged in conduct amounting to terrorism and the undermining of democratic institutions. The judgement also emphasized that the PDP in particular, has benefitted greatly from decades of violent voter suppression.
On June 17, 2025, Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo rejected an asylum bid by Douglas Egharevba, a Nigerian PDP member, ruling that his affiliation alone made his application inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
According to court filings, Egharevba entered Canada in September 2017 and disclosed his political history in a Background Declaration Form. Under questioning by the Canada Border Services Agency in 2018, he confirmed his eight-year PDP membership before switching to the APC. Canadian immigration authorities flagged his affiliations, citing intelligence and international reports that linked both parties to electoral misconduct and politically motivated killings.
He claimed that his personal record was untainted by the violence and manipulation that plagued Nigerian politics, insisting he had never personally engaged in terrorism or subversion. But Justice Ngo was unconvinced, writing that “the conduct of individuals who are members of the PDP, including high-ranking officials, and those who committed political violence and intimidation on their behalf, is too widespread and persistent over too great a period of time to dissociate the leadership of the party from their actions.”
Citing the Immigration Appeal Division’s (IAD) findings, Justice Ngo agreed that both parties have resorted to “violence, murder, ballot-stuffing, ballot box snatching, intimidation of voters, and other unlawful acts” to secure power, and that such actions fall under Canada’s definition of terrorism as they seek “to intimidate the public or a segment of the public… for a political objective.”
Egharevba argued that election violence is simply a normal part of Nigeria’s political cycle, and merely constitutes the “rules of the game.” He argued further, that Nigeria’s weak electoral institutions cannot truly be “subverted”, by virtue of their weakness.
The Canadian court rejected this as “circular” reasoning, noting that flawed elections remain elections nonetheless, and still make up democratic processes in Canadian terms.
Reinforcing the IAD’s ruling as “transparent, intelligible and justifiable,” the court dismissed Egharevba’s appeal — a decision that marks one of the strongest foreign judicial acknowledgments of the systemic violence, terrorism, and democratic erosion tied to Nigeria’s two main political parties.
PDP Laments
PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, has criticised the judgement as unfounded and unjustified, stressing that Nigeria and Canada are both democracies, and such allegations should be handled with caution and precision.
He added that there was no evidence to support the claim that either the PDP or APC could be classified as terrorist organisations.
However, he did acknowledge that while there may be individuals within the APC-led government with questionable ties, it was wrong to generalise and label entire political parties as terrorist groups.
“If they wanted to say that some individuals in the government, particularly the APC government, have traces to terrorism, like we all are aware where the last Boko Haram leader was caught in one of the prominent members of this government’s apartment house, they will have a case. And I would say, yes, those individuals have ties to terrorists and terrorist organisations. But to say an entire political party is a terrorist organisation is wrong.”
APC Kicks Back
Similarly, the APC dismissed the ruling as baseless, with its National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Bashiru, describing the presiding judge as “an ignoramus” and insisting the party was “a credible democratic political organization” that “does not seek legitimacy from a foreign bench and under a law that has no extra territorial application.”
Soneye Reacts
Olufemi Soneye, media strategist and former NNPC communications chief, warned that the Canadian court’s labeling of the APC and PDP as terrorist groups is “deeply troubling,” as it establishes that even mainstream political affiliation can be treated as terrorism. He cautioned that the move could damage Canada-Nigeria diplomatic relations by equating the nation’s central democratic institutions with extremist organizations.
Soneye noted that for Nigerians abroad — especially former party members — the ruling could mean “heightened scrutiny, denied visas, and rejected asylum claims” in Canada and potentially in other Western nations. Calling terrorism “a grave charge,” he argued that applying it to long-standing governing parties “dilute[s] the meaning of the term… and cheapen[s] the fight against genuine extremists,” while erasing the “boundary between political disagreement and criminal threat” that protects democracy.
He warned that fear of visa denials and other repercussions could discourage young people from joining parties, undermining pluralism and silencing emerging voices.
“If the definition of terrorism can be stretched to encompass mainstream political organizations in one of Africa’s largest democracies, then no political movement anywhere is safe from being redefined into illegitimacy in a foreign court.”
While the criticisms of the Canadian court decision as setting a dangerous precedent might be warranted, it cannot be denied that the actions of Nigeria’s mainstream political parties stick out like a sore thumb on the global stage. Voter intimidation, electoral violence and bloodshed are, as the Canadian court insisted, not normal acts in a democratic nation, no matter how much Nigerian politicians or political pundits bend themselves over backwards to justify them as commonplace. They remain abnormal and unacceptable as a routine part of democratic electoral activity.
We often speak of controlling our international image, of owning our narrative, but words of affirmation and hollow reassurances about Nigeria’s greatness will not erase the grave reality of Nigeria’s sham of a democracy. Even by Nigerian legal standards, the voter intimidation that has become routine can be interpreted to fall under the definition of terrorism.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2011 (section 2) defines acts of terrorism as “acts which [are] deliberately done with malice, aforethought and which can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to — seriously intimidate a population.”
The international audience’s reactions to Nigeria’s human rights infringements have also been piling up for some time now; the U.S. Embassy, British High Commission, Embassy of Finland, Embassy of Norway and the Canadian High Commission released a joint statement earlier in the year, urging the Nigerian government to respect freedom of expression. The U.S. published a recent travel advisory warning its citizens against travelling to Nigeria over rising insecurity. As recently as 2023, the U.S. embassy condemned the acts of widespread violent voter suppression that took place during the polls.
Thus, the Canadian court decision comes as no surprise. If anything, it only names the unconscionable acts that have been carried out by Nigeria’s political parties, unfettered, for decades. That such acts are “normal” in the country only shows that Nigeria is far behind when it comes to running an effective democracy – it does not excuse the acts themselves, and cannot serve as an argument against other countries pointing out their absurdity.
Perhaps categorising all members of these political parties as participants in terrorism is a misstep on the part of the Canadian court, and perhaps denying Egharevba asylum based on his party membership is excessive, but the legitimacy of calling out violent voter suppression for what it is — terrorism — is much more difficult to argue against.
0 Comments
Add your own hot takes