August 17, (THEWILL) — Douglas Egharevba, a Nigerian who sought refuge in Canada since 2017, harboured hopes of beginning afresh. However, on 17 June 2025, the Federal Court of Canada upheld a tribunal’s decision to reject his asylum claim, not because he had committed any act of violence, but owing to his past political affiliations. A decade-long membership of both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC), from the PDP’s founding in 1999 until 2007, then the APC until 2017, proved sufficient for Canadian officials to deem him inadmissible under immigration law.
Canada’s Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) ruled that Egharevba’s political party connections, regardless of individual wrongdoing, constituted adequate grounds to consider him associated with organisations implicated in subversion or political violence. When the case reached the Federal Court, Justice Phuong Ngo upheld the inadmissibility ruling on subversion alone, opting not to rule on the IAD’s more alarming claims of “terrorism”. This distinction is significant: neither a Canadian court nor the government has formally designated the PDP or APC as terrorist organisations in Canada’s official registry under the Criminal Code.
Technical distinctions aside, the ruling carries a sobering message, one with profound implications for Nigerians abroad. Whilst Canada may not have explicitly branded our political parties as terrorist organisations, the tribunal viewed Nigeria’s political landscape through the prism of electoral violence and institutional failure, finding this sufficient justification to deny asylum.
How did Nigeria provide such ammunition to a foreign court? When politics turns violent, responsibility can be traced to the top. Our elite, political leaders, financiers, and power brokers, have treated elections as battlegrounds rather than democratic processes. Thuggery, intimidation, and vote manipulation are not accidents; they are planned, financed and rewarded. From Rivers State to Kogi, Lagos to Kano, the pattern remains consistent: violence breeds victory and perpetrators walk free.
Our political parties have been complicit. Rather than promoting ideals and internal democracy, they have offered patronage and factionalism. Primaries have been regularly manipulated rather than transparent. Candidates with questionable credentials or worse have often been rewarded with tickets when they delivered results, by any means necessary. Accountability has been virtually non-existent. In such an environment, violence becomes strategy rather than aberration.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), entrusted as the guardian of fair elections, has too often failed in its duty. The 2023 general election and prior polls were plagued with issues: delays in result uploads, opaque collation processes, logistical breakdowns and poor coordination. Civil society group Yiaga Africa noted that INEC violated its own guidelines on timely uploads. International observers, from the EU to IRI/NDI, reported “operational shortcomings” and “poor administration”. Conflict trackers, such as ACLED, recorded spikes in election-related violence. This institutional failure lends credence to the claims Canada’s tribunal reviewed.
Under Canadian law, immigration officials may deny entry to individuals connected to organisations found, on a “reasonable grounds” standard, to have engaged in subversion of democratic government. Given that Nigeria’s electoral record is punctuated by episodes of violence, coercion and contested results, the tribunal concluded that Egharevba’s party affiliations alone, tainted as the record was, were sufficient to refuse his asylum claim.
The divide this creates runs deep. On one side, the elite operate with foreign passports, bank accounts and diplomatic protection. On the other, ordinary Nigerians, students, businessmen and women, asylum-seekers, may carry invisible baggage based solely on past and or perceived party membership.
Predictably, the domestic reaction proved defensive. Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the ruling, calling it “baseless” and an affront to our sovereignty. PDP and APC officials declared it “misinformed” and “biased”. Lawmakers warned that treating legitimate political parties as criminal organisations risks undermining free political expression and democratic participation.
Yet, this reaction misses the crux of the matter. This is not about outrage at Canada, it concerns confronting our failures. Had Nigerian elections been credible, INEC trusted, parties disciplined and violence punished, would Canada have possessed grounds for such a ruling? The court’s reasoning may have been narrow, but it reflects a broader, uncomfortable truth: Our politics have rendered us vulnerable to disastrous foreign judgement.
Nevertheless, this should serve as a wake-up call rather than a crushing blow. If progress is to be achieved, it must begin with genuine reforms. First, electoral crimes must carry real consequences. The long-stalled Electoral Offences Commission, empowered, independent, and timely, needs to become reality rather than mere rhetoric. If party leaders who sponsor violence are not held accountable, nothing will change.
Second, INEC must deliver transparency and trust. Automatic release of polling-unit results, audit-ready processes, secure digital logs, and thorough testing of election technology well in advance should be standard, and non-negotiable.
Third, election-day security requires a risk-based and enforceable approach. Security deployments should align with credible intelligence, from civil society and independent monitors, and personnel who permit intimidation must face discipline or dismissal.
Fourth, the judiciary should resolve election disputes expeditiously. Protracted court battles erode faith, embolden coercion, and impede governance. Justice delayed is justice denied, and breeds impunity.
Canada’s tribunal ruling is damning. It suggests that Nigeria’s political system, in the view of foreign arbiters, appears complicit in electoral violence. This perception must be reversed, through substantive action rather than denial.
Let us be clear: no formal Canadian designation exists against the PDP or APC, so the ruling remains limited in scope. Yet it casts a spotlight we have long avoided. Whether we dismiss this moment as scaremongering or treat it as a catalyst depends on leadership, elite leadership willing to embrace change.
This is not a verdict. It is a warning to our political elites who continue to steal and deprive citizens of basic infrastructure and a thriving economy. I hope they are listening because enough is enough.
If we fail to repair our politics, we risk being defined by our failures. The choice remains ours.
