The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) criticised a Canadian court’s decision to declare Nigeria’s two largest political parties, the PDP and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as terrorist organisations.
The PDP condemned the accusation as ‘misinformed, biased, and lacking evidence’ and urged that it be discarded completely.
Mr Olufemi Soneye, former Chief Corporate Communications Officer of NNPC Ltd, also criticised the court’s decision for setting a hazardous precedent.
He warned that it was a political earthquake that might have far-reaching implications beyond Canada’s borders, warning that “if democratic nations don’t push back on this kind of overreach, they may one day find their own politics on trial in a foreign court.”
The Federal Court of Canada affirmed a verdict classifying Nigeria’s APC and PDP as terrorist groups while denying asylum to a former member, Douglas Egharevba, due to his decade-long involvement with both parties.
On June 17, 2025, Justice Phuong Ngo dismissed Egharevba’s judicial review application after the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) deemed him inadmissible under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
According to the Peoples Gazette, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness claimed that the APC and PDP were responsible for political violence, subversion of democracy, and election bloodbath in Nigeria.
According to court records, Egharevba was a PDP member from 1999 until 2007, before joining the APC, where he remained until 2017. He moved to Canada in September 2017 and revealed his political background.
Canadian immigration officials investigated his affiliations, claiming intelligence information linked both parties to electoral violence and politically motivated murders.
The IAD’s conclusion was partly based on the PDP’s actions during the 2003 state elections and 2004 local government elections, when the party allegedly engaged in ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and the murder of opposition activists.
The tribunal determined that the party leadership benefited from the violence and did nothing to stop it, which meets Canada’s legal definition of subversion under IRPA paragraph 34(1)(b.1).
Justice Ngo confirmed that mere participation in an organisation associated with terrorism or democratic subversion is sufficient to result in inadmissibility under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA, even without proof of personal involvement.
-
2027 Presidency: PDP sets up zoning panel, denies talks with Jonathan, Obi
-
2027: PDP’s best alternative is Goodluck Jonathan – Sule Lamido
In an interview in Abuja, PDP Deputy National Youth Leader Timothy Osadolor described the claim as baseless and unjustified.
He emphasised that Nigeria and Canada are both democracies, and such claims should be treated with caution and clarity.
“Nigeria and Canada are both democracies. And I’m sure those who make such statements enjoy their right to freedom of speech. But again, when having freedom of speech, one should be circumspect about unguarded and unnecessary statements,” Osadolor said.
He also stated that there was no evidence to support the idea that the PDP or APC could be labelled as terrorist organisations.
“There’s nothing to show; there’s nothing in text to show that even the malfunctioning APC is a terrorist organisation or the PDP, which is a credible institution,” he added.
Osadolor admitted that, while there may be people in the APC-led administration with questionable affiliations, it was incorrect to generalise and classify entire political parties as terrorist organisations.
“If they wanted to say that some individuals in the government, particularly the APC government, have traces to terrorism, like we all are aware of where the last Boko Haram leader was caught in one of the prominent members of this government’s apartment houses, they will have a case. And I would say, yes, those individuals have ties to terrorists and terrorist organisations.
“But to say an entire political party is a terrorist organisation is wrong,” he said, and urged Canadian authorities to focus on specific allegations against individuals rather than making sweeping accusations.”
In a statement, Soneye stated that the implications of the Canadian federal court’s declaration of APC and PDP as terrorist organisations under Canadian law “are deeply troubling. Legally, the ruling sets a precedent that political affiliation, no matter how commonplace or mainstream, can be equated with terrorism. Diplomatically, it risks souring Canada-Nigeria relations by painting the country’s core democratic institutions with the same brush as extremist groups.”
He continued: “For Nigerians abroad, especially those who have ever held a party membership card, it signals heightened scrutiny, denied visas, and rejected asylum claims not only in Canada but potentially in other Western democracies that may follow suit.
“Even more alarming is what this means for democracy. Labelling established political parties as terrorist organisations undermines their legitimacy at home and abroad. It blurs the vital line between dissent and danger, between governance and extremism. Once such a label is applied, it can be wielded, domestically or internationally, as a tool to silence opposition, suppress political participation, and erode civil liberties.
“Terrorism is a grave charge. To weaponise it against political organisations that have governed a democracy for decades is to dilute the meaning of the term and cheapen the fight against genuine extremists. It also blurs the essential boundary between political disagreement and criminal threat, a boundary that safeguards democratic life.
“Canada has long been a champion of democratic values abroad. This ruling contradicts that legacy. It must be revisited, challenged, and corrected, not just for Nigeria’s sake, but for the integrity of democratic politics everywhere. If this precedent stands, no political party, in any country, is safe from being redefined into illegitimacy by a foreign court.
“One immediate consequence of the Canadian ruling is that law-abiding Nigerian youths, both at home and across the diaspora, could be branded ‘terrorist’ solely for past or present affiliation with the APC or PDP.
“I know for a fact that the immigration laws of the US and Canada allow inadmissibility based on membership in a group deemed terrorist; this creates a real risk of collateral stigma for young people whose involvement was purely civic.
“The prospect of visa denials, asylum rejections, or routine travel scrutiny will chill legitimate political participation among youths who are the lifeblood of party renewal. Far from strengthening democracy, such deterrence erodes pluralism by pushing emerging voices out of mainstream politics.
“The world should take note: when courts begin deciding which foreign political parties are “terrorists”, the erosion of democracy is no longer theoretical; it has begun.
“This is not merely Canada’s internal immigration matter. It’s a global warning. If the definition of terrorism can be stretched to encompass mainstream political organisations in one of Africa’s largest democracies, then no political movement anywhere is safe from being redefined into illegitimacy.
“Canada’s decision is not just about Douglas Egharevba; it’s about the dangerous precedent it sets. And if democratic nations don’t push back on this kind of overreach, they may one day find their own politics on trial in a foreign court.”
