The Federal Court of Canada has upheld a landmark ruling by the country’s Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), which classified Nigeria’s two major political parties—the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as terrorist organizations under Canadian immigration law.
The ruling was delivered on June 17, 2025, by Justice Phuong Ngo, who dismissed an application for judicial review filed by Douglas Egharevba, a Nigerian political operative and former member of both parties. Mr. Egharevba’s asylum claim was denied on the grounds of inadmissibility under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), specifically for affiliation with organisations involved in terrorism and subversion of democracy.
Background of the case
Mr. Egharevba, who entered Canada in September 2017, disclosed in his immigration forms that he had been a member of the PDP from 1999 to 2007 and later joined the APC, remaining with the party until 2017. His long-standing political affiliations were flagged by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), which cited intelligence reports and international documentation linking both parties to widespread political violence, electoral malpractice, and human rights abuses.
Though Mr. Egharevba claimed he had no personal involvement in such activities, Canadian immigration authorities argued that his association with the parties during violent and undemocratic periods was sufficient to warrant inadmissibility under sections 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(f) of the IRPA.
In January 2019, an immigration officer found him inadmissible. While a lower Immigration Division initially ruled in his favour in 2020, citing insufficient evidence that the leadership of the parties directly orchestrated violence, the Minister of Public Safety appealed with new evidence. On March 25, 2024, the IAD overturned the earlier decision, declaring that both the PDP and APC had engaged in terrorism and subversion of democracy, and that membership alone—even without personal complicity—met the threshold for exclusion from Canada.
Justice Ngo, in affirming the IAD’s decision, emphasized that the PDP’s record during the 2003 and 2004 elections provided “sufficient and determinative” evidence of democratic subversion. The court cited extensive documentation of voter intimidation, ballot box snatching, killings of opposition supporters, and other forms of electoral violence carried out by party members and loyalists during the tenure of then-President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
The judge concluded that the party leadership, while benefiting from these actions, failed to intervene or halt the violence—effectively meeting Canada’s legal standard for subverting a democratic process.
“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,” Justice Ngo wrote.
The court also reinforced Canada’s broad interpretation of “membership” in a proscribed organization, stating that a person need not have been directly involved in violent acts or held a senior position to be found inadmissible.
“An admission of membership in an organisation is sufficient… regardless of the nature, frequency, duration or degree of involvement,” the judge noted.
Mr. Egharevba had argued that political violence is endemic in Nigeria and that singling out the PDP or APC was unfair. He also contended that Nigeria’s elections, widely criticized for irregularities, should not be considered legitimate democratic processes under Canadian standards. The court rejected these arguments.
Justice Ngo ruled that even flawed elections fall within the definition of a democratic process under Canadian law, and any attempts to undermine them for political gain constitute subversion.
Additionally, the court held that Mr. Egharevba’s attempt to reinstate the original 2020 ruling in his favour was procedurally untenable. Even if the IAD’s later decision had been found unreasonable, the matter would have been sent back for reconsideration—not decided in his favour outright.
This decision marks one of the most definitive foreign court rulings to date that equates Nigeria’s dominant political parties with terrorist organizations, underlining that foreign political affiliations—regardless of personal conduct—can trigger exclusion from Canada under national security grounds.
The ruling leaves Mr. Egharevba’s asylum application effectively closed, with deportation proceedings expected to follow.
