The Federal Government of Nigeria has firmly rejected a recent Canadian court ruling that labeled two of the country’s major political parties—the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)—as terrorist organizations. Nigeria described the decision as reckless and an unacceptable intrusion into its democratic process.
The controversy stems from a case involving Douglas Egharevba, a Nigerian national who applied for refugee status in Canada in 2017. In June 2025, the Federal Court of Canada upheld an Immigration Appeal Division decision denying his claim under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The denial was based on Egharevba’s affiliation with both the PDP and the APC—affiliations that Canadian authorities linked to electoral violence and subversion of democracy during Nigeria’s 2003–2004 elections.
Justice Phuong Ngo ruled that mere membership in organizations associated with wrongdoing is sufficient grounds for declaring inadmissibility under Canada’s IRPA, regardless of individual culpability.
In a sharp-statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria denounced the ruling as a sweeping, inaccurate characterization that unfairly brands entire political bodies—some of which produced democratically elected presidents—as terrorist organizations. The statement warned that the decision undermines the legitimacy of Nigeria’s democratic institutions and constitutes undue interference in internal political affairs.
The government urged Canadian authorities to withdraw the designation, engage in constructive dialogue, and correct the misjudgment. Diplomatic channels were emphasized as open, with reassurances that Nigeria remains committed to counter terrorism and that its political parties operate within legal constitutional frameworks.
Both the PDP and APC rejected the ruling outright:
PDP criticized the ruling as uninformed, biased, and evidence-free, warning against applying sweeping political labels that harm civic engagement and democratic pluralism.
APC reaffirmed its status as a legitimate democratic institution, stressing that foreign courts lack jurisdiction to make determinations about Nigerian political groups. The party accused elements of the judgment of being misguided and politically motivated.
Olufemi Soneye, a former communications executive with NNPC, condemned the ruling as dangerous precedent, arguing it risks chilling political participation by branding former members—especially youths—as terrorists.
This decision raises alarming issues beyond Canada–Nigeria relations:
Precedent for Global Democracy: Labeling mainstream political parties as terrorist groups threatens democratic norms worldwide.
Diaspora Discrimination: Nigerians abroad—even with minimal involvement in party politics—could face discrimination in immigration and asylum processes.
Erosion of Legitimacy: Democratic organizations risk losing credibility both domestically and internationally through unwarranted association with terrorism.
Nigeria has taken a firm stance, but the outcome hinges on whether Canada will retract or amend its position. The legitimacy of the ruling’s broader implications—on global democracy, diaspora rights, and cross-border political definitions—remains in question.
