The Canadian Federal Court’s decision classifying the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as terrorist organisations is deeply troubling and deserves strong objections. It represents an alarming overreach into Nigeria’s internal political affairs and stems from a prejudicial bias against Nigeria.

It is doubtful whether the court would have expressed the same prejudice against Canadian or American institutions. This decision, which mischaracterises Nigerian politics without distinguishing between individual misconduct and institutional intent, undermines the democratic processes of a sovereign nation.
  
However, there are deep lessons, as the court’s pronouncement serves as a wake-up call to Nigerian politicians and political institutions that they cannot set a standard for Nigeria that is less than the acceptable minimum for the rest of the world. While political practices all over the world are not perfect, there must nevertheless be a limit to impunity and unwholesome practices that take citizens for granted, undermine democratic principles and condone outright criminalities. Unfortunately, Nigerian politicians and parties often perpetuate these practices. And if they want the world to respect them, they must begin to respect themselves and the laws of Nigeria.
 
The position of the Canadian court stems from a decision about former Nigerian politician, Douglas Egharevba, who faces deportation from Canada after the Canadian Federal Court, in the case of Egharevba v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1093. The court upheld the decision of Canada’s Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), which declared Nigeria’s two major political parties—the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)—as terrorist organisations.

Dismissing Egharevba’s bid to overturn the IAD’s decision, which had found him inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the court affirmed that his membership in both the APC and PDP implicated him in terrorism and subversion.
 
This case arose from an asylum application filed by Egharevba, a Nigerian politician who belonged to the PDP from 1999 to 2007 before defecting to the APC. He arrived in Canada in September 2017 and sought asylum on the grounds of political persecution in Nigeria. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness argued that both the PDP and APC, to which Egharevba belonged, were deeply implicated in acts of political violence, subversion of democracy, and electoral bloodshed—inflicting harm and terror on Nigerians.
  
In refusing Egharevba’s asylum application, Madam Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo of the Canadian Federal Court upheld earlier findings that both the PDP and APC have such entrenched histories of political violence that mere membership in either party constitutes grounds for inadmissibility under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
 
In other words, the Canadian Federal Court held that both the APC and PDP are terrorist organisations which, through systemic political violence, electoral malpractice, ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, killings of opposition supporters, and other political perversions, have operated in ways tantamount to terrorism under Canadian law. The larger implication of this court decision is that any member of the APC or PDP is now considered a potential terrorist.
  
By equating political affiliation with terrorism, the ruling sets a precedent that could be weaponised against legitimate political dissent worldwide. It risks stigmatising millions of Nigerians who support these parties and could fuel diplomatic tensions between Canada and Nigeria.

Instructively, Nigeria’s Federal Government has rightly demanded a retraction of this designation, calling it a “grave misrepresentation” that could incite unnecessary tension. The government further argues that Nigeria is a sovereign country with its own judicial and constitutional framework governing political activities, and that associating its political entities with terrorism without credible evidence is a gross misrepresentation that undermines Nigeria’s democracy.
  
Similarly, the PDP has condemned the decision of the court, describing the judgment as “misinformed, biased, and lacking evidence.” Essentially, the judgment of the Canadian court has no legal effect in Nigeria and does not bind Commonwealth countries such as Nigeria.
  
However, even if the court’s decision has no legal or binding effect in Nigeria, it remains highly persuasive. Therefore, it should not be dismissed as mere meddling by a foreign court. To do so would be to miss the point entirely. The decision is a mirror held up from afar, reflecting an ugly truth many Nigerians already know but are too fatigued, fearful, or compromised to confront: since 1999, the country’s political system has been managed not by genuine political parties, but by political cartels.
  
The truth of the matter is that the Canadian court’s ruling—while not a formal terrorist designation of the APC or PDP—sends a powerful signal: the international community is watching, and political violence, corruption, and democratic subversion have consequences that ripple far beyond Nigeria’s borders. Therefore, Nigerians cannot simply wave off the court’s decision as irrelevant.
  
Moreover, Nigerian asylum seekers affiliated with the APC or PDP may face heightened scrutiny or outright denial of asylum in Canada or even in other countries, especially if their political history overlaps with documented periods of violence. This is why human rights activists like Femi Falana, SAN, have warned that the Canadian decision could influence similar judgments in other Western countries, such as the UK or the U.S. If left unchallenged, it may lead to visa denials, deportations, or international stigma for party members abroad.
 
The court’s decision could also strain diplomatic ties, as it sets a precedent for foreign courts evaluating domestic political entities through a security lens. It may tarnish the international image of the APC and PDP, particularly in countries with strict immigration policies tied to political violence. The ruling establishes that mere membership in these parties could trigger inadmissibility under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—even without personal involvement in violence. To ignore this decision would therefore be perilous.
  
Rather than dismissing the court’s judgment as “ignorant” or “mischievous,” it should, as Falana, rightly argues, serve as a wake-up call to confront the culture of electoral violence and impunity that has plagued Nigeria’s political system for decades. Nigeria’s image as Africa’s largest democracy is at stake when foreign courts begin scrutinising Nigerian political parties for violent conduct. If leading parties in Nigeria are viewed as complicit in violence, it tarnishes the nation’s image and undermines the credibility of its institutions and leadership.
  
The court cited historical incidents of ballot snatching, voter intimidation, politically motivated killings, impunity and vote-rigging that have plagued Nigeria’s democracy. This should spur Nigeria to clean up its electoral processes, curb thuggery in politics, and ensure that political competition does not devolve into intimidation or bloodshed.
 
The ruling ought to inspire Nigeria to strengthen electoral reforms, implement and enforce laws that punish electoral violence, and protect voters and candidates. Political parties must also hold their members accountable and reject violent tactics as a means to power.
  
Importantly, Nigeria must identify and prosecute perpetrators of violent crime in the guise of playing politics. There are too many politically motivated murders in the country, particularly in the first ten years of the current democratic dispensation. Sadly, no one has been tried successfully and punished for these crimes. Until the guilty are duly sanctioned, the government and the ruling political elite can lay no claim to innocence or credibility.