Is it right to label all politicians in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) terrorists going by the ruling of a Canadian court?
This is the million Naira question that has set tongues wagging in a country that has become synonymous with terrorism in the last 15 years, since the court ruling.
Political analysts have often linked political thuggery and violence to politicians, noting that during electioneering periods, there is a significant reduction of violent crimes in the country.
Though there is no scientific proof of this trend, there are those who suggest that even terrorism and banditry are at their lowest during election periods, because the purveyors of these violent acts are recruited by political parties and their leaders.
The Canadian Federal Court issued the landmark ruling designating APC and PDP as terrorist organisations under international law. The ruling came as part of a decision to deny asylum to a Nigerian political insider.
Justice Phuong Ngo upheld an earlier ruling by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) that found Douglas Egharevba inadmissible to Canada due to his long-standing membership in both parties. The court determined that mere affiliation with the APC and PDP, regardless of direct involvement in violence, met Canada’s threshold for association with terrorism and the subversion of democratic processes.
Egharevba, a founding member of the PDP in 1999 who defected to the APC in 2007 and remained active until 2017, arrived in Canada later that year. However, his political background raised red flags with immigration authorities, who cited reports linking both parties to election violence, ballot tampering, voter intimidation, and politically motivated killings.
A central element of the case was the PDP’s conduct during the 2003 state elections and the 2004 local government polls under President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice-President Atiku Abubakar. The IAD and the court concluded that party members were involved in widespread electoral malpractice and violence, from which the leadership directly benefited and failed to curb.
Justice Ngo ruled that these actions qualified as “subversion of a democratic process” under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He emphasized that, while Nigeria’s elections may be flawed, Canada still recognizes them as democratic processes—and any effort to undermine them for political gain constitutes subversion.
The court further affirmed Canada’s broad interpretation of organizational “membership” in cases involving proscribed groups: simply being affiliated during known periods of violence is enough to render someone inadmissible, regardless of individual actions.
Egharevba argued that violence was endemic to all Nigerian political parties and that labeling the PDP’s actions as subversion was unfair given Nigeria’s troubled electoral history. However, the court rejected his defense and dismissed his asylum claim, effectively clearing the way for his deportation.
This decision represents one of the strongest statements by a foreign court equating Nigeria’s current and former ruling parties with terrorist organisations. It also sets a precedent for denying refuge to individuals with ties to those parties, based on documented patterns of political violence and democratic subversion.
Political analysts have often linked political thuggery and violence to politicians, noting that during electioneering periods, there is a significant reduction of violent crimes in the country.
Though there is no scientific proof of this trend, there are those who suggest that even terrorism and banditry are at their lowest during election periods, because the purveyors of these violent acts are recruited by political parties and their leaders.
