Canada Upholds Ruling Labeling APC and PDP as Terrorist Organisations, Denies Asylum to Former Party Member

The Federal Court of Canada has upheld a highly contentious decision that classifies Nigeria’s two dominant political parties — the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) — as terrorist organizations under Canadian immigration law. The ruling has led to the denial of asylum to a former member of both parties, Douglas Egharevba, and has sparked intense debate over the intersection of political affiliation, violence, and international refugee protections.

The decision, delivered on June 17, 2025, by Justice Phuong Ngo, dismissed Egharevba’s application for a judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Division’s (IAD) earlier finding. The IAD had determined that his association with the APC and PDP rendered him inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Jonathan Alerts Public Over Fake Instagram Account, PDP Youth Leader Defends His Absence From Party

Political History Under the Microscope

Court documents revealed that Egharevba’s political career began in 1999 when he joined the PDP, where he remained until 2007. Following his departure from the PDP, he became a member of the APC, staying in the party until 2017. That same year, he emigrated to Canada and openly disclosed his political history to Canadian immigration authorities.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness argued that both the APC and PDP had long-standing reputations for political violence, electoral malpractice, and the subversion of democratic processes in Nigeria. Intelligence reports presented in court linked the two parties to acts of intimidation, killings, and systemic electoral fraud — particularly in the early 2000s.

Focus on PDP’s Conduct in 2003 and 2004

Much of the court’s decision centred on the PDP’s role in Nigeria’s 2003 state elections and the 2004 local government polls. Evidence presented suggested that the party engaged in ballot stuffing, voter suppression, and, in some cases, politically motivated killings of opposition supporters.

The IAD concluded that PDP leadership not only benefited from these acts of violence but also failed to take meaningful steps to prevent them. These actions were deemed to meet the threshold for “subversion” as defined in paragraph 34(1)(b.1) of the IRPA, which addresses activities aimed at undermining democratic governance.

APC’s Inclusion in the Ruling

Although the PDP’s historical record during the 2003 and 2004 elections was the most heavily scrutinised, the APC was also implicated. Canadian authorities argued that the APC — formed in 2013 but comprising elements from older parties with histories of electoral violence — had engaged in similar practices, including intimidation and clashes during election cycles.

The court accepted that both parties’ actions collectively undermined the democratic process in Nigeria and thus satisfied the criteria for classification under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA, which allows for the designation of organisations involved in terrorism or subversion.

Egharevba’s Defence Rejected

Egharevba’s primary defence rested on the argument that political violence was widespread across all Nigerian parties, and that singling out the PDP and APC was unjust. He maintained that his membership in both organisations was driven by mainstream political engagement rather than any endorsement of violence.

Justice Ngo, however, rejected this reasoning, stating that the specific and documented actions of the PDP in the early 2000s — and the APC in later years — were sufficiently severe to justify the terrorist classification. The judge further noted that, while Nigerian elections are far from perfect, they still qualify as part of a democratic process under Canadian law, meaning any deliberate undermining of them meets the legal definition of subversion.

Legal Precedent and International Implications

This ruling sets a significant precedent in Canadian immigration law by reinforcing that political affiliation alone — if linked to a group designated as engaging in terrorism or subversion — can be grounds for inadmissibility. Under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA, mere membership in such an organisation is sufficient to trigger exclusion from asylum eligibility, regardless of whether the individual personally engaged in violent acts.

Legal analysts note that this decision could have far-reaching effects on asylum claims from individuals in countries with histories of political violence, particularly where major political parties have been accused of such conduct. It also raises complex questions about how democratic deficits in certain nations are interpreted in international refugee protection frameworks.

Deportation Proceedings Expected

Following the dismissal of his appeal, Egharevba faces imminent deportation from Canada. His asylum claim, first lodged in 2018, has now reached what appears to be its final legal dead-end. Canadian immigration enforcement officials are expected to initiate removal proceedings in the coming weeks.

The case has already ignited conversations in Nigerian political and legal circles, with some seeing the decision as a gross oversimplification of the country’s complex political landscape, while others argue it is a wake-up call about the international perception of Nigeria’s electoral history.

Broader Debate Over Political Accountability

Critics of the ruling say it risks criminalising political participation for citizens of countries with troubled democracies, potentially shutting the door on legitimate asylum claims. Supporters counter that the decision reinforces the principle that political violence, regardless of its source, is incompatible with democratic values and should carry consequences on the global stage.

For Nigerians seeking asylum abroad, the ruling serves as a stark reminder that affiliations with major political parties — even for non-violent members — can carry heavy legal consequences in certain jurisdictions.

As the dust settles, the Canadian court’s decision leaves both domestic and international observers grappling with the same question: where is the line between political engagement and complicity in the erosion of democratic order?