The Federal Court of Canada has officially declared Nigeria’s two dominant political parties, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as terrorist organisations under Canadian law. This landmark ruling comes after a thorough judicial review process and has far-reaching implications for members and former members of both parties who seek asylum or immigration benefits in Canada.
The judgment was delivered on June 17, 2025, by Justice Phuong Ngo, who upheld earlier findings that both APC and PDP have been linked to acts of electoral violence, politically motivated killings, and subversive activities aimed at undermining democratic processes in Nigeria. The ruling also dealt a major blow to Douglas Egharevba, a Nigerian national and former member of both parties, whose application for asylum in Canada was denied due to his decade-long association with the organisations in question.
According to court documents, Egharevba was an active member of the PDP from 1999 until 2007. He later joined the APC, where he remained an active member until 2017 before relocating to Canada in September of that year. Upon his arrival, he disclosed his political affiliations to Canadian immigration authorities, which subsequently led to a detailed investigation. The authorities relied on intelligence and historical reports that tied both parties to electoral malpractice and violence during different election cycles in Nigeria.
The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) had previously ruled that Egharevba was inadmissible under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), particularly referencing paragraph 34(1)(b.1), which covers subversion by force of any government. The IAD cited multiple documented incidents involving PDP members during the 2003 state elections and the 2004 local government polls, where the party allegedly engaged in ballot box stuffing, voter intimidation, and orchestrated attacks on political opponents. The tribunal concluded that party leaders not only benefited from the violence but also failed to take necessary actions to stop it, thereby meeting the legal threshold for subversion.
Justice Ngo, in affirming the IAD’s decision, emphasized that under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA, mere membership in an organisation that is linked to terrorism or democratic subversion is sufficient to trigger inadmissibility. This applies even in the absence of direct evidence proving the individual’s personal involvement in any violent acts. The court rejected Egharevba’s defense that political violence was a widespread problem across all Nigerian political parties, stating that such a claim does not negate the findings regarding his former parties’ documented conduct.
The ruling further highlighted that under Canadian law, even flawed elections are recognised as part of a democratic process, and any actions intended to disrupt or undermine them are considered subversive activities. Therefore, the historical patterns of violence and intimidation attributed to the APC and PDP were enough to categorise them as terrorist organisations for the purpose of immigration admissibility.
This decision not only marks the end of Egharevba’s asylum hopes but also sets a precedent for how Canadian authorities may handle future cases involving members or former members of Nigerian political parties with documented histories of violence. Deportation proceedings against Egharevba are now expected to follow swiftly, barring any new legal interventions. The ruling is expected to send strong signals to politically affiliated asylum seekers that Canadian immigration law takes allegations of political violence and democratic subversion very seriously.