A Federal Court in Canada has upheld a controversial ruling that designates Nigeria’s two leading political parties the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as terrorist organizations, paving the way for the deportation of former Nigerian politician Douglas Egharevba.
In a judgment dated June 17, 2025, the court dismissed Egharevba’s appeal against a prior decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), which found him inadmissible under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The court determined that his past affiliations with the APC and PDP implicated him in organizations involved in terrorism and the subversion of democratic processes.
Canadian immigration authorities argued that both parties have longstanding ties to political violence, electoral fraud, and voter intimidation. They emphasized that senior party figures not only tolerated these activities but also benefited politically from them.
Egharevba, who was affiliated with the PDP from 1999 to 2007 and later with the APC until 2017, denied any personal wrongdoing. However, the court ruled that even without direct involvement, his membership during key periods of violence was sufficient grounds for inadmissibility under Canadian law.
Central to the case were the 2003 and 2004 elections during the PDP-led government of President Olusegun Obasanjo. The court found evidence of ballot stuffing, opposition suppression, and politically motivated killings actions that were ignored or condoned by party leadership.
Justice Phuong Ngo, presiding over the case, clarified that Canadian law defines democratic subversion broadly, including manipulation of the electoral process by illegal or coercive means. She emphasized that mere membership in a group known for such activities can justify exclusion from Canada.
Egharevba’s defense—that violence was common across all Nigerian political parties—was rejected. The court noted that while Nigerian elections are flawed, they still constitute a legal democratic framework. Undermining that system for political advantage, it concluded, qualifies as subversion.
