Canadian court labels APC and PDP terrorist groups, denies Nigerian asylum

A Canadian Federal Court has upheld an immigration tribunal ruling that labels Nigeria’s two major parties—the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)—as terrorist organisations under Canadian law, and has denied asylum to former party member Douglas Egharevba. The June 17, 2025 judgment, released by Justice Phuong Ngo, confirms that mere membership in either party triggers inadmissibility on security grounds under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), even if the applicant has no personal record of violence.

The court endorsed the tribunal’s finding that both parties were “deeply implicated in acts of political violence, subversion of democracy, and electoral bloodshed.” It relied on IRPA paragraphs 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(f), which cover membership in organisations linked to terrorism or the subversion of a democratic process. The ruling ends Egharevba’s asylum bid and clears the way for deportation steps to follow.

Case background and affiliations

Egharevba’s record with the two parties was central to the case. Key facts:

• He was a PDP member from 1999 to 2007, then joined the APC from 2007 to 2017.
• He moved to Canada in September 2017.
• Canadian immigration authorities flagged his affiliations, and the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) earlier concluded his party memberships fell within IRPA’s security bar.

The Federal Court has now agreed with the IAD’s conclusion.

Evidence and tribunal findings

The court cited documented incidents that shaped the tribunal’s findings, including conduct during:

• The 2003 state elections
• The 2004 local government polls

Documented evidence included:

• Ballot stuffing
• Intimidation of voters
• Killings of opposition supporters

The tribunal found that party leaders benefited from these actions and did not stop them. The Federal Court found no basis to detach senior leadership from widespread conduct by members and supporters over many years.

“The conduct of individuals who are members of the PDP, including high-ranking officials, and those who committed political violence and intimidation on their behalf, is too widespread and persistent over too great a period of time to dissociate the leadership of the party from their actions.” — Justice Phuong Ngo

The court applied the same logic to the APC, finding a pattern of actions that undermined democratic processes.

Legal reasoning and statutory basis

• Statutory provisions relied on: IRPA 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(f)
  (covering membership in groups connected to terrorism or subversion of democracy)
• Core legal conclusion: Membership alone in the APC or PDP can trigger inadmissibility under IRPA, regardless of personal involvement in violence.
• The court emphasized that Canadian law recognizes elections—even flawed ones—as part of a democratic process; attempting to win power by attacking that process amounts to subversion.

The decision rejected arguments that violence is common across all Nigerian parties and therefore should not single out APC and PDP. It also dismissed claims that flawed polls are not “democratic” in the Canadian sense, noting that violence tied to elections still meets the threshold for subversion under IRPA.

Role of public safety officials and intelligence

Officials from the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness presented intelligence linking both parties to widespread political violence and attempts to manipulate the electoral system. The minister urged the tribunal—and later the court—to treat the APC and PDP as terrorist entities for immigration purposes.

The Federal Court, after reviewing that record, concluded the tribunal’s decision fell within a reasonable range of outcomes.

Policy ruling and legal summary

• Date of judgment: June 17, 2025
• Court: Canadian Federal Court
• Judge: Justice Phuong Ngo
• Applicant: Douglas Egharevba (PDP 1999–2007; APC 2007–2017; arrived September 2017)
• Legal basis: IRPA 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(f)
• Key outcome: APC and PDP treated as terrorist organisations under Canadian law for immigration purposes; asylum denied

The court explained that even if the tribunal’s conclusion had been unreasonable, the remedy would not have been to grant asylum but to send the matter back for reconsideration. Egharevba’s request to restore an earlier favorable decision was rejected. With this ruling, his claim is effectively over, and removal steps are expected.

Implications and precedent

The decision sets a clear precedent and is likely to shape how future Canadian cases handle Nigerian political affiliations. Observations:

• Canadian policy analysts see this approach as consistent with efforts to combat transnational political violence and protect democratic norms via immigration controls.
• Legal experts describe the case as one of the clearest rulings by a foreign court equating major Nigerian parties with terrorist organisations in an immigration context.
• Nigerian commentators are divided: some view it as a sweeping judgment on political culture, while others warn against equating party membership with personal wrongdoing.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com indicates the ruling will likely make it harder for many current and former APC or PDP members to secure asylum or protection in Canada.

Impact on applicants and next steps

For people filing refugee claims or other protection requests in Canada, the practical steps and consequences are stark:

1. Full disclosure
   • Applicants must disclose all political affiliations.
   • Failure to disclose can itself undermine a claim.
2. Enhanced screening
   • Any link to the APC or PDP will prompt close review under IRPA security rules.
3. Membership test
   • The court confirmed that membership alone can trigger inadmissibility.
   • Evidence of personal violence is not required.
4. Likely process outcome
   • Where membership is established, the most likely result is a finding of inadmissibility, the end of the claim, and removal steps.

Applicants currently in the system with past or present ties to either party should expect the ruling to be applied. The court’s decision stands as of August 14, 2025, though further appeals may be filed. Deportation proceedings for Egharevba are expected to move ahead.

Tribunal record and human considerations

The tribunal’s detailed historical record—showing patterns of ballot fraud, intimidation, and lethal attacks during the 2003 and 2004 contests—was pivotal. The Federal Court accepted that the scale and duration of these actions tied the parties to the conduct of their members and supporters, reducing the persuasive power of individual disclaimers.

At the human level:

• Some Nigerian claimants say they joined parties for career or community reasons, not to support violence.
• The court’s reasoning leaves little room for that distinction when the record shows long-standing, organized harm tied to the parties.
• Nonetheless, the decision reiterates that Canada treats elections—even flawed ones—as part of a democratic system that must be protected; when groups seek power through force or fear, IRPA’s security bar applies.

Key takeaway: The APC and PDP are treated in Canadian immigration law as terrorist organisations. Membership in either party can bar protection in Canada, as it did for Douglas Egharevba.

Further information and resources

The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board provides official information on how security-related inadmissibility is assessed and how claims are processed. Consult the IRB’s country information and procedures here: https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/country-information/rir/Pages/index.aspx?doc=458474&pls=1.