By Johnson Babalola @jblawpro
1. Introduction
On 15 August 2025, Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, a Nigerian lawyer and academic, published an open letter to Senator Ajibola Bashiru, urging Nigeria to lodge a lawsuit against Canada at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over a recent judgment of the Federal Court of Canada in _Egharevba v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1093._
According to Dr. Jaja, the Canadian decision amounted to a declaration that the Nigerian Police, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) are “terrorist organisations.” He further argued that Nigeria should challenge the decision internationally to prevent other Commonwealth countries from citing it.
While the concerns expressed are understandable from a patriotic standpoint, the legal premise of Dr. Jaja’s position is flawed. This article clarifies what the Canadian judgment actually held, the limits of its legal effect, and why the ICJ is not the appropriate avenue for recourse.
2. What the Federal Court of Canada Actually Decided
Contrary to certain interpretations, _Egharevba_ was not a general declaration branding Nigerian institutions as terrorist organisations.
The decision arose from an immigration inadmissibility proceeding under section 34 of Canada’s _Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)_. The immigration authorities had determined there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant’s past associations — specifically, his membership in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) — brought him within the inadmissibility provisions relating to subversion and terrorism.
Importantly, the Court did not make any finding that the All Progressives Congress (APC) was a terrorist organisation. In fact, the judgment makes it clear that the Immigration Appeal Division’s conclusion on the PDP alone was sufficient to uphold inadmissibility, and therefore no pronouncement was made on the APC.
Misrepresenting the ruling as one that labelled APC as a terrorist organisation is both factually inaccurate and legally misleading.
3. Domestic Rulings Do Not Bind Nigeria or the Commonwealth
Even if the Canadian court had gone further (which it did not), Canadian court decisions have no automatic legal effect in Nigeria. They also do not bind other Commonwealth nations, each of which has its own legal system, evidentiary standards, and definitions under domestic law.
While it is theoretically possible for courts elsewhere to take note of foreign judgments, immigration inadmissibility findings are highly fact-dependent and rarely transferable to other contexts without fresh evidence and argument.
4. The ICJ Is Not an Appellate Court for Canadian Decisions
Dr. Jaja’s suggestion that Nigeria could “appeal” to the ICJ misconceives the Court’s jurisdiction. The ICJ hears disputes between states under international law; it does not entertain appeals from domestic court rulings.
Key jurisdictional barriers include:
* *Standing*: Only states may bring cases; an individual or political party cannot.
* *Jurisdiction*: Canada withdrew its general acceptance of compulsory ICJ jurisdiction in 2023. It cannot be sued without its explicit consent.
* *Subject Matter*: The ICJ’s role is to resolve disputes under international treaties or customary international law, not to overturn national immigration or refugee determinations.
Thus, there is no legal pathway for Nigeria to “appeal” a Canadian immigration decision to the ICJ.
5. Need for Certification of Question of General importance by the Federal Court
This requirement comes from section 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which says:
“An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.”
So, in immigration and refugee matters, which is the applicable area of law here,:
* No appeal as of right from Federal Court to Federal Court of Appeal.
* Only by judicial review with a certified question of general importance.
* And in this case, there was no certified question of general importance by the Court.
* Once expired, the judgment stands unless successfully reopened on extraordinary grounds — a high threshold.
At this point, any challenge would need to be pursued through diplomatic channels, not litigation.
6. The Risk of Mischaracterising the Judgment
Publicly framing the decision as if Canada had officially proscribed the Nigerian Police, APC, and PDP as terrorist organisations risks creating unnecessary political tension — and in the case of the APC, is wholly inaccurate.
It could also damage bilateral relations without basis in the actual text of the judgment.
Precision matters — especially when dealing with sensitive international matters where misunderstanding can fuel diplomatic rifts.
7. Conclusion
The Egharevba decision was a narrowly focused Canadian immigration ruling, not a global condemnation of Nigerian institutions. It addressed only the PDP, not the APC, and it did not issue a blanket declaration applicable to all members of the Nigerian Police or political parties (there are many cases where the applications for protection, visiting visas and permanent residence of members of Nigerian political parties, the military and the Police have been granted). It does not bind Nigeria or the Commonwealth, nor is it subject to appeal at the ICJ.
While Nigeria is entitled to defend its reputation and clarify misunderstandings, the most effective avenue is diplomatic engagement — not pursuing an ill-fated legal challenge in an inappropriate forum.
International law and diplomacy both demand careful distinction between case-specific findings and binding declarations. In this instance, the Canadian court made the former, not the latter.
N.B: Johnson Babalola, a Canada based immigration lawyer is a certified specialist in Canadian immigration and refugee law. @jblawpro www.jblawpro.com
Babalola, also a regular writer for The New Diplomat, an engaging Storyteller, and Workplace expert, wrote in from Toronto, Canada.
