Beyond APC, PDP’s Denial of Terrorist Tag

Ejiofor Alike writes that the All Progressives Congress, the Peoples Democratic Party and other political parties should purge the Nigerian electoral system of the widespread acts of thuggery and other forms of violence that characterise election cycles and which formed the basis for the Canadian court’s hotly disputed decision against the APC and PDP

A

 judgment delivered by Judge Phuong TV Ngo of the Canadian court in the case between Douglas Egharevba and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has sparked controversy in Nigeria.

The applicant (Douglas Egharevba) sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), dated March 25, 2024, which ruled that the applicant was inadmissible in Canada under its Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

According to the IAD: “(4) The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. In September 2017, the applicant entered Canada and initiated an inland refugee claim. The applicant submitted a Background Declaration Form stating that he was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of Nigeria from December 1999 until December 2007, and a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) of Nigeria from December 2007 until May 2017. As a result of this information, he was referred to a Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer to determine whether he was admissible to Canada. In September 2018, the applicant confirmed his membership in the PDP and APC in an interview with the CBSA officer.

“(5) In January 2019, an immigration officer declared that the applicant was inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA as it relates to paragraphs 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(c) for being a member of an organisation that has engaged in acts of subversion against a democratic government, institution, or process and engaged in terrorism, based on his membership with the PDP. The applicant challenged his inadmissibility before the ID.

“(6) On September 23, 2020, the ID concluded that the applicant was not inadmissible on any of the grounds alleged by the minister as there was insufficient evidence to establish that the leadership of both the PDP and APC intended to cause death or serious bodily harm or intended to subvert democratic processes in Nigeria. The ID found that the minister had not produced sufficient evidence of the internal structure of the PDP and APC and the degree of control that each party’s leadership exercised over its members. The minister appealed the ID’s decision to the IAD, submitting additional evidence.

“(8) In the decision, the IAD noted that there was no evidence or allegations that the applicant had personally engaged in terrorism or subversion. However, the IAD found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the PDP engaged in terrorism and subversion of democratic institutions. The IAD concluded that the PDP engaged in political violence and subversion including ballot stuffing, ballot box snatching, voter intimidation, violence, and murder of opposition supporters and candidates in the 2003 state elections and 2004 local elections (Elections) 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.

“The applicant’s membership to the PDP was sufficient to link him to these acts for the purpose of inadmissibility under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA. The IAD also found that the leadership had a high degree of control over its members, as evidenced by the applicant’s testimony before the ID that he left the PDP because the leadership imposed their own candidate overriding the decision of the applicant’s local ward. The IAD declined to make a finding on whether the applicant is also inadmissible for his membership in the APC as the evidence on the PDP was sufficient and determinative.”

However, the applicant sought a judicial review, which was on whether the IAD’s decision was unreasonable.

In a decision on the matter dated June 17, 2025, Judge Phuong T.V. Ngo dismissed the application for judicial review, which many interpreted as an affirmation of the indictment of the APC and the PDP.

However, in a statement by the National Publicity Secretary of the APC, Mr. Felix Morka, the ruling party argued that the Canadian court did not declare it as a terrorist organisation.

“For the record, APC was not in existence as of 2007. The party was registered in 2013. The applicant’s claim of membership of APC as of 2007 is evidently false as he could not have been a member of APC that didn’t exist at the time,” the statement added.

Similarly, the PDP described the classification as “misinformed, biased, and lacking evidence,” calling for it to be dismissed outright.

PDP’s Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, was quoted as saying that “there’s nothing to show; there’s nothing on text to show that even the malfunctioning APC is a terrorist organisation or the PDP, which is a credible institution.”

In its strongly-worded reaction, the federal government, through the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the Canadian court ruling as not only “baseless” and “reckless”, but also “an unacceptable interference in Nigeria’s internal affairs and democratic processes”.

According to a statement by the spokesperson for the ministry, Kimiebi Ebienfa, the government noted that the judgment failed to distinguish between individuals who might have committed offences and the broader membership of legitimate political entities.

The statement said it was unacceptable to associate legitimate political entities with terrorism without credible evidence.

APC and the PDP cannot absolve themselves of the acts of thuggery, electoral malpractices and other forms of violence that characterize the country’s electoral cycles and which formed the basis for the decision of the Canadian court.

Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Femi Falana, has challenged the two parties to prove that they are not terrorist organisations.

Falana noted that the ruling carries far-reaching consequences beyond judicial recognition, and urged Nigeria’s major political parties to address the serious concerns raised, instead of dismissing the judge’s pronouncements as ignorant or mischievous.

In his statement, Falana stressed that under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 of Nigeria, terrorism includes the use of violence, intimidation, or coercive tactics with political or ideological motives, which have become common features of elections in the country.

The human rights activist accused the two parties of rigging elections with the assistance of armed thugs, police and military personnel.

He argued that the federal government’s protest to the Canadian authorities would not reverse the judgment.

Nigeria’s political actors should not hide under the fact that Nigeria is a sovereign state to challenge the undisputable position of the Canadian court.

As rightly observed by the Canadian court, Nigeria’s political parties engage in “political violence and subversion, including ballot stuffing, ballot box snatching, voter intimidation, violence, and murder of opposition supporters and candidates.”

All these are acts of terrorism in the Canadian law