- •Judgement bad precedence – PDP
- •Presiding judge an ignoramus, says APC
- •As Former Nigerian politician faces deportation over ruling
By Matilda Ibimina
Former Nigerian politician Douglas Egharevba faces deportation after Canadas Federal Court upheld a ruling designating Nigerias two main political parties the All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, as terrorist organisations.
In a June judgment 17, Justice Phuong Ngo dismissed Egharevbas bid to overturn an Immigration Appeal Division, IAD, decision that found him inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, for belonging to groups implicated in terrorism and the subversion of democracy.
Canadian authorities argued that both parties have long been associated with political violence, electoral malpractice, and intimidation, with leaders benefiting from and failing to prevent harm to Nigerians. Egharevba, a PDP member from 1999 to 2007 and an APC member until 2017, maintained a clean personal record; however, the court held that his membership during periods of widespread violence was sufficient for inadmissibility, even without evidence of direct participation.
The ruling drew heavily on the PDPs conduct during the 2003 state and 2004 local government elections under then-President Olusegun Obasanjo, when party loyalists were found to have engaged in ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and killings of opposition supporters actions tolerated by the leadership for political gain.
Justice Ngo emphasised that, under Canadian law, subversion of a democratic process includes securing political change through unlawful means, whether or not force is used. Mere membership of an implicated organisation is enough to meet the threshold, regardless of the extent of involvement.
Egharevbas argument that all Nigerian parties were equally violent was rejected, with the court ruling that, however flawed, elections in Nigeria are legally democratic processes, and undermining them for political advantage constitutes subversion.
PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, speaking exclusively to Vanguard in Abuja, said the report was unfounded and unjustified. He stressed that Nigeria and Canada are both democracies, and such allegations should be handled with caution and precision.
Nigeria and Canada are both democracies. And Im sure those who make such statements enjoy their right to freedom of speech. But again, when having freedom of speech, one should be circumspect about unguarded and unnecessary statements, Osadolor said.
He added that there was no evidence to support the claim that either the PDP or APC could be classified as terrorist organisations.
Theres nothing to show, theres nothing on text to show that even the malfunctioning APC is a terrorist organisation or the PDP, which is a credible institution, he added.
Osadolor acknowledged 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 governments 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, he said, and urged Canadian authorities to focus on specific allegations against individuals rather than making sweeping accusations.
In a statement, Soneye said the implications of the Canadian federal courts declaration of APC and PDP as terrorist organisations under Canadian law, are deeply troubling. Legally, the ruling sets a precedent that political affiliation, no matter how commonplace or mainstream, can be equated with terrorism. Diplomatically, it risks souring Canada-Nigeria relations by painting the countrys core democratic institutions with the same brush as extremist groups.
He continued: For Nigerians abroad, especially those who have ever held a party membership card, it signals heightened scrutiny, denied visas, and rejected asylum claims not only in Canada but potentially in other Western democracies that may follow suit.
Even more alarming is what this means for democracy. Labeling established political parties as terrorist organisations undermines their legitimacy at home and abroad. It blurs the vital line between dissent and danger, between governance and extremism. Once such a label is applied, it can be wielded, domestically or internationally as a tool to silence opposition, suppress political participation, and erode civil liberties.
Terrorism is a grave charge. To weaponise it against political organisations that have governed a democracy for decades is to dilute the meaning of the term and cheapen the fight against genuine extremists. It also blurs the essential boundary between political disagreement and criminal threat, a boundary that safeguards democratic life.
Canada has long been a champion of democratic values abroad. This ruling contradicts that legacy. It must be revisited, challenged, and corrected, not just for Nigerias sake, but for the integrity of democratic politics everywhere. If this precedent stands, no political party, in any country, is safe from being redefined into illegitimacy by a foreign court.
One immediate consequence of the Canadian ruling is that law-abiding Nigerian youths, both at home and across the diaspora could be branded terrorist solely for past or present affiliation with the APC or PDP. I know for a fact that the immigration laws of the US and Canada allow inadmissibility based on membership in a group deemed terrorist, this creates a real risk of collateral stigma for young people whose involvement was purely civic. 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. Far from strengthening democracy, such deterrence erodes pluralism by pushing emerging voices out of mainstream politics.
The world should take note: when courts begin deciding which foreign political parties are terrorists, the erosion of democracy is no longer theoretical, it has begun. This is not merely Canadas internal immigration matter. Its a global warning. If the definition of terrorism can be stretched to encompass mainstream political organizations in one of Africas largest democracies, then no political movement anywhere is safe from being redefined into illegitimacy.
Canadas decision is not just about Douglas Egharevba, its about the dangerous precedent it sets. And if democratic nations dont push back on this kind of overreach, they may one day find their own politics on trial in a foreign court.
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.
Bashiru, according to The Nations, argued, The court has no jurisdiction to determine the status of a Nigerian recognised political party not to talk of declaring it as a terrorist organization The so-called judgment was obviously delivered from a jaundiced perspective and within the narrow confines of determining eligibility for asylum by an applicant.
He further lamented: It is unfortunate that some desperate and unpatriotic Nigerians will allow the name of the country to be brought to unpalatable commentary by racist judges on account of self-contrived application for asylum.
Both parties have urged Canadian authorities to focus on individual accountability rather than sweeping classifications that, in their view, threaten diplomatic relations and risk distorting Nigeria’s democratic image abroad.
