By Obinna Uballa
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC), have firmly rejected a ruling by a Canadian federal court classifying both as terrorist organisations.
APC National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Bashiru, in his reaction, dismissed the ruling as “baseless,” insisting that the Canadian court has no jurisdiction over the status of a Nigerian-recognised political party.
“The so-called judgment was delivered from a jaundiced perspective and within the narrow confines of determining eligibility for asylum,” Bashiru told the media.
He added: “It is unfortunate that some unpatriotic Nigerians will allow the country’s name to be dragged into unpalatable commentary by racist judges on account of self-contrived asylum claims.”
Also reacting, PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, described the classification as “misinformed, biased, and lacking evidence.”
“There’s nothing to show that even the malfunctioning APC is a terrorist organisation, let alone the PDP, which is a credible institution,” Osadolor reportedly said.
“If they wanted to say that some individuals in the APC government have traces to terrorism, they may have a case. But labelling an entire political party is wrong,” he added.
Both parties have urged Canadian authorities to focus on individual accountability rather than sweeping classifications that, in their view, distort Nigeria’s democratic image and threaten international relations.
Recall that on June 17, 2025 Justice Phuong Ngo of a Canadian Court in Ottawa gave a ruling, upholding an earlier Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision denying asylum to a Nigerian national Douglas Egharevba over his membership of the PDP and APC.
Court records had shown that Egharevba was a PDP member from 1999 to 2007 before joining the APC until 2017, when he relocated to Canada and disclosed his political history.
According to Canadian court filings, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness argued that the two parties were implicated in political violence, electoral malpractice, and democratic subversion, citing incidents such as the PDP’s alleged role in the 2003 state elections issues and 2004 local government polls, which reportedly involved ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, as well as alleged killings of opposition supporters.
The IAD had concluded that party leadership benefited from the violence and took no action to stop it. According to the Court, this meets Canada’s legal definition of subversion under paragraph 34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Justice Ngo had consequently affirmed that under paragraph 34(1)(f), mere membership of such an organisation could trigger inadmissibility, even without proof of personal involvement.
