… Little Known Court Ruling Raises Red Flag for Nigerian Travellers, Immigrants With Political Party Ties
By Jeremy Fregene
In a landmark but little-known judgment with potentially far-reaching consequences for Nigerians travelling or seeking to immigrate to Canada, the Federal Court of Canada has, for the first time, classified the country’s two dominant political parties, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as “terrorist organizations” under Canadian law. The decision, delivered on June 17, 2025, by Justice Phuong Ngo, upheld an earlier ruling of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) declaring Nigerian-named Douglas Egharevba inadmissible to Canada because of his prior membership of both parties.
Egharevba had applied for asylum in Canada, claiming he faced persecution if returned to Nigeria. But Canadian immigration authorities argued that his political affiliations fell under prohibitions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which bars entry to anyone associated with organizations involved in terrorism, subversion of democracy, or acts of serious violence. Justice Ngo agreed, noting that evidence presented by the IAD linked both APC and PDP to episodes of electoral bloodshed, political violence, and deliberate undermining of democratic processes.
The court’s ruling placed particular emphasis on the PDP’s conduct during the 2003 state elections and 2004 local government polls. The evidence, the judge said, pointed to ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and even killings of opposition supporters, actions allegedly tolerated by party leadership while reaping political advantage. Under paragraph 34(1)(b.1) of the IRPA, acts that subvert a democratic process, especially when achieved through illicit means, fall within Canada’s definition of terrorism or serious security concerns. Paragraph 34(1)(f) further stipulates that mere membership in such an organization, even without direct involvement in violent acts, is enough to trigger inadmissibility.
Justice Ngo stressed that membership during periods when the party engaged in violent or subversive acts was sufficient to deny entry, “regardless of the nature, frequency, duration, or degree of involvement.” Egharevba’s legal team argued that political violence in Nigeria is not limited to the PDP and APC, and that it was unfair to single them out. The court dismissed this, stating that, even if flawed, Nigerian elections are recognized as democratic under Canadian law, and actions that undermine them qualify as subversion.
The ruling has sparked concern among immigration lawyers and members of the Nigerian diaspora. Analysts warn it could set a precedent for Canadian immigration officers to scrutinize, and possibly reject, visa, residency, or asylum applications from Nigerians who have ever been members of the APC or PDP, whether or not they engaged in political violence. Given that both parties have dominated Nigeria’s political scene for over two decades, the decision could affect a significant segment of potential Nigerian immigrants, particularly former politicians, aides, or even party members with otherwise clean records. Legal experts say the ruling may also embolden immigration authorities in other Western countries to adopt similar interpretations when assessing the security risk posed by political affiliations.
For now, the Canadian judgment stands as a stark warning: political history in Nigeria could be enough to close Canada’s doors to those with links to its two largest parties.