Canadian Court Denies Asylum To Nigerian Politician Douglas Egharevba Over PDP Membership, Labels APC, PDP As Terrorist Organisations

In a landmark decision that casts a damning spotlight on Nigeria’s political landscape, the Federal Court of Canada has upheld a ruling declaring both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to be engaged in conduct amounting to terrorism and subversion of democratic institutions.

The judgment, delivered on June 17, 2025 by Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo, dismissed the asylum application of Douglas Egharevba, a Nigerian national and admitted PDP member, on the grounds that his party membership alone was sufficient to make him inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Political Violence, Murder, and Electoral Subversion

The court endorsed the Immigration Appeal Division’s (IAD) detailed findings that both the PDP and APC have engaged in political violence, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and even murder to gain and maintain power, according to a court document obtained by Peoples Gazette.

The PDP and APC are Nigeria’s two dominant political parties.

Quoting directly from the IAD’s reasoning, Justice Ngo noted, “The conduct of individuals who are members of the PDP, which includes violence, murder, ballot-stuffing, ballot box snatching, intimidation of voters, and other unlawful acts, is too widespread and persistent over too great a period of time to dissociate the leadership of the party from their actions.”

The court further upheld the IAD’s conclusion that both parties’ actions fit the definition of “terrorism” under Canadian law, stating that the violence was designed to “intimidate the public or a segment of the public… for a political objective.”

PDP Found Responsible for the Majority of the Violence

While acknowledging that both PDP and APC have engaged in unlawful practices, the IAD had found that the PDP committed the majority of these acts and benefited most from them, especially during its 16 years in power.

“Although other parties have committed unlawful acts to further their political goals, the PDP committed the majority of the acts and benefited from them more than any other party,” the ruling recounted.

Egharevba did not dispute his PDP membership but argued that he was not personally involved in any acts of violence.

The court reaffirmed that under Canadian immigration law, membership in an organisation linked to terrorism or subversion is sufficient grounds for inadmissibility, regardless of an individual’s level of personal involvement.

Justice Ngo stressed, “Once membership is established or admitted, then it is membership for all purposes. The Applicant’s admission that he was a member of the PDP was determinative.”

Rejected “Rules of the Game” Defence

In a key part of his defence, Egharevba argued that political violence in Nigeria is so systemic that it forms part of the “rules of the game,” and that the country’s democratic institutions are too weak to be “subverted” in the Canadian legal sense.

The court dismissed this as flawed and circular reasoning, saying, “It would be circular to consider that elections marred by irregularities cannot qualify as a democratic institution or process…

“The fact that there was subversion would have the effect of denying the very possibility of recognizing subversion, which would be paradoxical.”

Justice Ngo concluded that Nigerian elections, despite irregularities, are still democratic processes as understood in Canada, and interference with them constitutes subversion.

The court found the IAD’s decision “transparent, intelligible and justifiable” and dismissed Egharevba’s application for judicial review.

It also declined to certify a legal question, effectively ending his asylum bid unless he can find another appeal route.

The decision stands as one of the clearest judicial pronouncements by a foreign court linking Nigeria’s two leading political parties to systemic violence, terrorism, and democratic subversion — and rejecting claims that such practices are politically “normal” in the country.