Canadian court did NOT declare APC, PDP terrorist organisations

A Canadian federal court did not designate Nigeria’s two leading political parties as terrorist organisations as widely reported by many Nigerian news outlets, a review by PREMIUM TIMES has revealed.

The reports that the Canadian court declared the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the major opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as terrorist organisations have circulated widely across news platforms and social media since Thursday.

But a PREMIUM TIMES review of the 16-page judgement delivered in June by the Canadian court found the reports to be misleading.

From this newspaper’s analysis, what the court actually did was hold the PDP culpable for the subversion of democratic process by engaging in ballot snatching, stuffing of ballot boxes, voter intimidation, and violence during Nigeria’s general elections that took place from the early 2000s to 2007.

Also, contrary to the widespread framing of the court’s decision by Nigerian news platforms, the court did not indict the APC, as its decision was based on the electoral atrocities attributed to the PDP in the 2000s. The judgement referenced the APC only 5 times and the PDP 36 times.

The incidents and the timeframe reviewed by the court predated the APC, which only came into existence in 2013 ahead of the 2015 general elections.

How it began

The Canadian federal court in Ontario, Canada, delivered the judgement on an appeal filed by Nigerian politician Douglas Egharevba against the decision of the Canadian Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) rejecting his refugee status application. Mr Egharevba sued the Canadian Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as the sole respondent in the appeal.

The appeal challenged the IAD’s decision that the applicant was inadmissible to Canada under section 34(1)(f) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) based on his membership in the PDP.

Mr Egharevba entered Canada in 2017 and applied for refugee status under the country’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allows foreign nationals to seek protection if they fear persecution, torture, or a risk to their life or safety in their home country.

The court record said he was a member of the PDP between 1999 and 2007. It also said he joined the “All People’s Congress (APC)” in 2007 and maintained his membership of the party until 2017. This appears to have been a mix-up, as there was no party using the acronym APC in 2007. There is also no party that has ever identified as the All People’s Congress in Nigeria.

The closest to that is the All Progressives Congress (APC), today’s ruling party in Nigeria and the only party that has ever adopted that acronym, which only came into existence in 2013.

DOWNLOAD COURT DOCUMENT HERE

The acronym APC only featured in the portion of the judgment highlighting Mr Egharevba’s political trajectory in Nigeria. It was never mentioned in the rest of the judgment, where political and electoral atrocities attributed to the PDP were addressed by the court.

Mr Egharevba’s political history, particularly his affiliation with the PDP, prompted an investigation by Canadian immigration officials.

In 2018, a Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer interviewed Mr Egharevba to determine whether he was admissible to Canada. The applicant confirmed his membership in the PDP and APC (All People’s Congress) in an interview with the CBSA officer.

By January 2019, an immigration officer found Mr Egharevba inadmissible to Canada for being a member of an organisation believed to have engaged in terrorism and subversion of democratic processes, under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The applicant challenged his inadmissibility before the Immigration Division.

How terrorism crept into the narrative

The Immigration Division initially ruled in favour of Mr Egharevba in September 2020, saying 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.

But in March 2024, the IAD overturned that decision and concluded: “Although there was no evidence or allegations that the Applicant had personally engaged in terrorism or subversion, the IAD found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the PDP engaged in terrorism and subversion of democratic institutions.”

The IAD further stated 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.

“The conduct of individuals who were members of the PDP, including high-ranking officials and those who committed political violence and intimidation on their behalf, was too widespread and persistent over a period of time to dissociate the leadership of the party from their actions,” the IAD said. “The Applicant’s membership in 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 therefore declared Mr Egharevba inadmissible to Canada after concluding that the PDP engaged in political violence and subversion of democratic processes.

It did not make a finding on whether Mr Egharevba was also inadmissible due to his APC membership.

Instead, the IAD said the PDP’s record during the 2003 and 2004 elections was “sufficient and determinative” in his case.

Applicant’s appeal

Mr Egharevba challenged the IAD finding before the Canadian federal court, arguing that he never personally engaged in terrorism or subversion, and that his membership in the PDP did not amount to full integration in the party’s activities.

He also claimed that Nigeria’s elections could not be considered democratic by Canadian standards, describing political violence as systemic and generally accepted as part of electoral politics in Nigeria.

On the other hand, the respondent submitted that it was not required to establish whether the applicant was personally involved in the alleged acts, and an admission of membership in an organisation is sufficient to meet the membership requirement within the meaning of paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA

Court rules on Applicant’s claim

Federal Court Judge Ngo delivered his judgment on 25 June. He dismissed the applicant’s argument that he did not personally engage in terrorism and subversion of the democratic process, which the IAD blamed on the PDP.

The judge ruled that under Canadian immigration law, authorities do not need to prove a person’s direct involvement in such acts — membership in an implicated organisation is enough. “The Applicant was personally involved in the alleged acts and an admission of membership in an organisation is sufficient…regardless of the nature, frequency, duration or degree of involvement.”

The judge affirmed the IAD’s finding that the PDP conducted unlawful acts such as ballot box snatching and described it “uncontested”.

“Given this context, I find that the IAD’s conclusion on the Applicant’s membership with the PDP for the purposes of a determination under 34(1)(f) was reasonable.

“I also note the IAD’s uncontested finding of fact that the Applicant had testified being aware of ballot-box snatching and political violence in Rivers State, but not in Edo State where he was located,” the judge wrote.

However, he said, IAD’s decision referenced objective evidence that reported deaths and incidents of violent intimidation in Edo State during the Elections.

“The IAD stated that while knowledge was not a required element in assessing admissibility as a member of the PDP, the IAD found the Applicant most likely downplayed his knowledge and the seriousness of political violence committed by the parties in which he was involved. I see no reason to intervene with the IAD’s conclusion on the Applicant’s membership with the PDP.”

The court also rejected the argument that violence and corruption in Nigerian elections make them undemocratic by Canadian standards, saying such flaws do not strip an election of its status as a democratic process under Canadian law.

Court adopts subversion, ignores terrorism

The judge held that Mr Egharevba’s membership of the PDP was enough to declare him inadmissible into Canada.

But he also laid bare the latitude he had to uphold the Nigerian politician’s rejection on the grounds of the PDP’s subversion of the democratic process or terrorism.

“At the hearing, the parties agreed that if I were to find the IAD’s analysis to be reasonable on either subversion or terrorism, that would be sufficient to uphold the finding of inadmissibility under paragraph 34(1)(f) given that the Applicant could be determined to be inadmissible on the basis of either paragraph 34(1)(b.1) or 34(1)(c),” he wrote.

Concluding, the judge adopted subversion and was silent on terrorism.

Concerning the IAD’s finding that the PDP engaged in acts of subversion during the elections, Justice Ngo said: “I find that the IAD’s decision is transparent, intelligible and justifiable in light of the legal and factual constraints that bear on it.”

Explaining his adoption of grounds of subversion over terrorism, he said, “Having found that the IAD’s analysis on subversion was reasonable, this is sufficient to dismiss the application for judicial review. I will therefore refrain from analysing the IAD’s findings on terrorism.”

The court declared Mr Egharevba inadmissible in Canada after concluding that the PDP engaged in political violence and subversion of democratic processes.

However, the court didn’t declare the PDP and APC a terrorist organisation.

Under paragraph 34(1)(f) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), “a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds if they are a member of an organisation that is believed to be involved in acts of espionage, subversion, or terrorism.

This provision connects to paragraphs 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(c) because it allows a person to be found inadmissible if they are associated with an organisation that engages in the specific acts described in those paragraphs, namely acts of subversion against a democratic government (paragraph 34(1)(b.1)) or terrorism (paragraph 34(1)(c)).

Any of the acts of espionage, subversion, or terrorism could be the basis for denying a foreigner an opportunity to be admitted into Canada. The judge in Mr Egharevba’s case chose to adopt subversion.

Misleading reports

An online news platform, Peoples Gazette, first reported the judgment in Nigeria on Thursday, claiming that the Canadian Federal High Court upheld a landmark immigration tribunal ruling that declared Nigeria’s major political parties, the All Progressives Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party, as terrorist organisations.”

The newspaper reported that Canadian Immigration officials also refused asylum to a former member, Douglas Egharevba, “over his decade-long affiliation with both parties.”

“The ruling stands as one of the clearest pronouncements by a foreign court equating Nigeria’s ruling and former ruling parties with terrorist entities under international law. It reaffirms that party membership abroad can justify exclusion from Canada if the organisation is linked to terrorism or democratic subversion — even without a criminal record or evidence of personal violence,” the report said.

The story went viral across social media platforms, gaining over 386,000 impressions on X and thousands of reposts.

After the Peoples Gazette report, several newspapers, including Vanguard, Sahara Reporters, TheCable, and DailyPost, also reported the story from the same angle.

The Nigerian government has rejected the alleged designation of Nigeria’s two largest parties, APC and PDP, as terrorist organisations by a Canadian federal court. The APC and the PDP have also rejected the alleged ruling.

But both the government and the parties reacted to inaccurate reporting of the judgment, our review of the document shows.