The furore created by the judgement of the Federal Court of Canada, labelling one of Nigeria’s main political parties, PDP, as an organisation whose members engage in subversive activities, will likely persist for a while. This is also because asylum seeking Nigerian, Douglas Egharevba, is one in thousands of Nigerian citizens that may be facing difficult circumstances such as deportation, as his application for asylum was denied simply based on his one-time membership of the PDP. Did the Canadian Court go too far in characterising the PDP this way? Is it fair to render an individual who played no part in their political party’s violence or anti-democratic activities as inadmissible for asylum, when they weren’t directly involved in such activities? Is the Canadian judicial system inherently unfair and discriminatory, against Nigerian citizens? This and other related topics, are the focus of this edition as Ebunolu Adegboruwa, SAN; Chukwuemeka Eze and Kingsley Jeruorobo critically examine the issues and likely implication for both countries

The Canadian Judgement and Lessons for Nigeria

Ebunolu Adegboruwa, SAN

– “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” 2 Corinthians 13:8

– “Conscience is an open wound, only truth can heal it.” Uthman dan Fodio

Introduction

In the infamous years of military rule in Nigeria, the best mode of receiving news about the true state of affairs in Nigeria was to tune to the British Broadcasting Service, Voice of America, or any other foreign media. There was a massive crackdown on the media in Nigeria, and it was no use listening to Government-owned media outlets. In many States of the Federation presently, litigants prefer to take their cases to Courts established by the Constitution for the Federal Government, where they have a choice between those courts and the ones established for the States. There is a reasonable link between these two experiences. 

On June 17, 2025, a Federal Court in Canada delivered its decision in the case of Douglas Egharevba v The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. 

The Facts of the Case 

The facts of the case as narrated in the said decision are that:

“The Applicant, Douglas Egharevba [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] dated March 25, 2024 [Decision]. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness [Minister] appealed the decision by the Immigration Division [ID] dated September 23, 2020, which determined that the Applicant was not subject to inadmissibility under paragraphs 34(1)(b.1), 34(1)(c), and 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The IAD reversed the ID’s decision and found that the evidence was established on reasonable grounds to believe that, pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA, the Applicant was a member of an organisation that engages, has engaged, or will engage in acts of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada [subversion] as contemplated by paragraph 34(1)(b.1), and terrorism under paragraph 34(1)(c) of the IRPA. As a result, the Applicant was found to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to Section 34 of the IRPA. For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is dismissed. I cannot conclude that the Decision is unreasonable.”

Failure of Governance 

There are many issues thrown up by this case, ranging from failure of leadership, failure of governance and failure of citizenship. Today, many of our citizens are exiting their fatherland in droves, opting for menial jobs in foreign destinations, as a desperate means of survival. Under and by virtue of Section 14 of the Constitution, the priority of the Government should be the security and welfare of the people. Thus, the focal point of governance should be the safety, happiness and general well-being of the people. This will translate to the provision of durable infrastructure, initiating policies that encourage direct foreign investments, and creating the enabling environment for local investors to thrive. In this regard, stable power supply is key to catapulting national economic growth, especially through the small-scale businesses, the production sector and indeed, the service providers. Anticipating commercial disputes resulting from the investments attracted, a judicial system that is independent and well funded, is instituted to resolve such disputes within a reasonable time. Public schools and hospitals are well funded, to render quality services to the general populace that may not have the financial muscle to attend the exclusive private entities established for profit. This is what is done, in the jurisdictions where Citizen Douglas Egharevba and many other Nigerians are trooping to. However, these countries are now initiating more restrictive policies and legislations to discourage the influx of Nigerians, and this will also reflect in the decisions handed down by their courts. For Nigeria, it is a case of failure of governance.

Failure of Leadership

The concept of democracy developed from the jurisdictions where Citizen Egharevba ran to, revolved around the people. From the period of independence till now, those who wield political power in Nigeria have not embraced the true tenets of democracy, in allowing the will of the people to prevail. The process of leadership recruitment, both internally within the political parties, and externally during the general elections, have all been about imposition. There is a godfather somewhere, whose wish and will, must prevail over those of the people. Those in power exercise maximum control over the institution created to organise the election and through sheer manipulation, unbridled violence, intimidation, thuggery and vote-buying, it becomes impossible to determine the real winner of elections. They then dare you to go to court, knowing that the onus on the loser of any election is one of the most difficult ones to discharge in Nigeria. Citizen Egharevba inadvertently exposed the failure of leadership in Nigeria to the whole world, as captured in the Canadian Court judgement.

 ‘In the Decision, the IAD noted that there was no evidence or allegations that the Applicant had personally engaged in terrorism or subversion. However, the IAD found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the PDP engaged in terrorism and subversion of democratic institutions. The IAD concluded that the PDP engaged in political violence and subversion, including ballot stuffing, ballot box snatching, voter intimidation, violence, and murder of opposition supporters and candidates in the 2003 State elections and 2004 local elections [Elections]. The conduct of individuals who are members of the PDP, including high-ranking officials, and those who committed political violence and intimidation on their behalf, is too widespread and persistent over too great a period of time to dissociate the leadership of the party from their actions. The Applicant’s membership to the PDP was sufficient to link him to these acts for the purpose of inadmissibility under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA. The IAD also found that the leadership had a high degree of control over its members, as evidenced by the Applicant’s testimony before the IAD, that he left the PDP because the leadership imposed their own candidate overriding the decision of the Applicant’s local ward. The IAD declined to make a finding on whether the Applicant is also inadmissible for his membership in the APC, as the evidence on the PDP was sufficient and determinative.’

This case started in 2017, and dragged on till the final verdict was handed down in 2025. The jurisprudence of elections in Nigeria revolves around ‘substantial compliance’, focusing mostly on victory through majority of lawful votes secured at any electoral contest. Perhaps, the Canadian Court should have extended an invitation to the political parties concerned or representatives of the Nigerian Government, even as amicus, being part of the Commonwealth of Nations. The discretion is however, that of the presiding Judge and it will all depend on the facts and circumstances. The truth however, is that the facts presented before the court are those that we are all familiar with in Nigeria, but perhaps, not on such scale as to justify a blanket generalisation. The reports from some of the latest bye-elections conducted on August 16, 2025, all corroborate those alluded to in the Canadian Court case. It is a failure of leadership.

Failure of Citizenship

In many respects, Citizen Egharevba represents the failure of citizenship. It may be true that there is some degree of frustration in the land due to failure of governance and failure of leadership, but that cannot justify the desperation of many of our citizens. 

In this case, citizen Egharevba was an active member of the People’s Democratic Party from 1999 to 2006, when that party held sway in Nigeria. He most probably did not join that political party because of any ideology, but rather, to capture power and for as long as the PDP was in power, he remained with the party with all its atrocities and vices as reflected in the findings of the Court. As soon as PDP lost power to the APC, he jumped ship and joined the APC, which is not really a different entity from the PDP. “The Applicant submitted a Background Declaration Form stating that he was a member of the People’s Democratic Party [PDP] of Nigeria from December 1999 until December 2007, and a member of the All People’s Congress [APC] party of Nigeria from December 2007 until May 2017.” In the mind of Citizen Egharevba, as with many other Nigerians, the primary goal of these declarations was that it would help facilitate the process of seeking asylum, and run away from the crisis created by the failure of governance and of leadership. Here is a politician, who remained in politics for as long as it favoured his political party, crossed over to another political party as soon as his party lost power, and when there was no other party to cross to, he decided to cross to another country, using his membership of these organisations, as the basis of his escape. The message from the Canadian Court to Citizen Egharevba is to join forces with other Nigerians, to hold our leaders accountable to our people. It is not so rosy for those who have decided to remain in Nigeria, but out of a sense of patriotism, knowing that they have no other country, they resolved to stand up to make it work for all.

Lessons for Nigeria and Political Leaders

From the responses of politicians to this judgement, many feel a sense of outrage that membership of a political party could turn them into terrorists, especially when they were not parties to the case. That is the law in Canada, just as there is a law in Nigeria that permits the Government to proscribe IPOB, the Shiites and other organisations that they deem as terrorists. There is no greater terrorist, than the one who deliberately subverts the will of the people to impose his own will through violence, intimidation, subterfuge and thuggery. That is the crux of the decision of the Canadian court. The important thing is to get the message from the foreign Court that our leaders should develop Nigeria, make the land conducive for all, and stop the mass exodus of our people to other nations. This message sank in very well, because it is coming from Canada. The Judge who decided this case will have no reason to fear, did not solicit or receive any gratification and will not be subject to any harassment or intimidation, by reason of the exercise of judicial authority. We all must continue to tell our leaders the bitter truth, even from the homeland. If we mean to practice democracy, then let us embrace the universal tenets of that laudable concept, including free, fair and credible elections.

Conclusion 

Many months after the Canadian court judgement that was delivered in June 2025, Nigerian politicians were alleged to have still practised their ‘terrorism’ during the bye-elections that took place across the nation on August 16, 2025, which was characterised by widespread violence, death, ballot snatching and such other egregious electoral malpractices. There is need for proper orientation for all who aspire to positions of leadership through the ballot process, to follow the law, the guidelines developed by the electoral umpire and the rules and regulations of their political parties. After all, power belongs to God, and no one should attain it through the blood of another.

Ebunolu Adegboruwa, SAN, Human  Rights Advocate, Lagos

Declaration of PDP as Subversive Organisation by Canadian Federal Court

Legal and Political Implications

Chukwuemeka Eze

Introduction

In a landmark decision delivered on June 17, 2025, the Federal Court of Canada upheld the Immigration Appeal Division’s ruling that classified the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as a terrorist organisation. This ruling emerged from the asylum application of Douglas Egharevba, a former member of both parties, whose connection to the two political parties led to its denial, and imminent deportation from Canada.

 The judgement marks a precedent, not only because it references political parties as terrorist entities, but also because it highlights the intersection between political violence in Nigeria and Canadian immigration law. This piece examines the background of the PDP and APC, the legal framework governing asylum and refugee status in Canada, and judicial precedents, such as Suresh v Canada [2002] SCC 1, and the broader implications for Nigeria and international refugee law.

Defining Terrorism: Legal and Contextual Perspectives

 The term “terrorism” lacks a universally fixed definition, but generally encapsulates acts intended to intimidate populations for political purposes through violence or threats. The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 (“IRPA”) provides specific grounds for inadmissibility of asylum applications, on the grounds of terrorism in sections such as:

•Section 34(1)(b): Defines inadmissibility for engaging in the subversion by force of any government (including political violence or undemocratic interference); and 

•Section 34(1)(f): Bars individuals affiliated with an organisation engaged in terrorist or subversive activity from entering or remaining in Canada.

Under Canada’s IRPA, “terrorist activity” includes violence or threats intended to intimidate the public or compel a government, aligning with internationally recognised definitions.  Similarly, the Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention) Act, No. 10, 2011 (as amended), in its definition, sees terrorist acts as those intended to seriously intimidate a population with malice aforethought. This definition, from another perspective, can be extrapolated to link violent electoral practices to terrorism.

Antecedents of PDP and APC: Political Violence and Democratic Subversion in Nigeria

The PDP and APC have dominated Nigeria’s political landscape, since the end of military rule in 1999. Both parties have been repeatedly implicated in electoral manipulation, violent voter suppression, ballot stuffing, intimidation, and politically motivated killings, according to multiple reports documented by the Canadian court and global observers. 

The Canadian court’s ruling focused particularly on the PDP’s conduct during the 2003 State elections and 2004 local government polls, when the party allegedly orchestrated widespread voter intimidation and violence while benefiting from such tactics at the leadership level. The APC, the ruling party since 2015, is likewise noted for connections with violent actors.

International and Canadian Legal Framework Governing Asylum and Refugee Status 

Canada is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, which define who qualifies as a refugee and outline protections against persecution on grounds including political opinion. An applicant for refugee status starts his journey as an asylum seeker, upon entry into Canada. He might have entered through sponsorship by a group or self, or by referral by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Whichever way, the asylum seeker has to pass through procedures, to attain a refugee status. 

Key provisions of the Refugee Convention include Article 2, which provides that refugees must abide by the laws of the host country; and Article 9, which allows State parties to the Convention to take provisional measures against asylum seekers or refugees, if essential national security interests are threatened.

Canada’s IRPA incorporates these principles, setting out grounds for admissibility and exclusion, especially concerning individuals linked to terrorism or serious crimes.

Qualifications and Conditions for Asylum and Refugee Status in Canada

To qualify for asylum in Canada, applicants must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, beyond mere membership in a political party. With regard to Section 34(1)(f) of the IRPA, individuals affiliated with organisations engaged in terrorism or subversion of democratic processes can be deemed inadmissible, regardless of their personal involvement.

 This approach reflects Canada’s commitment to national security, and its obligations under international law to exclude those who pose threats, as further reinforced by Supreme Court decision in Suresh v Canada (Supra).

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and Asylum Applications

Politically exposed persons (PEPs), are individuals who have held prominent political positions or affiliations. They oftentimes face heightened scrutiny during asylum processes, especially where credible evidence links their parties or organisations to violence or terrorism. Many PEPs, in their asylum applications, consider it beneficial to embellish their applications with a litany of their previous “enviable” positions, and linking their perceived persecution to their decision to seek an asylum. The current development demonstrates that, the approach is suffering a boomerang. 

 The Canadian court’s approach emphasises that affiliation alone may suffice to deny refugee status, if the party himself is directly or indirectly engaged in ‘terrorism’ or subversion activities, even without demonstrated personal involvement in the wrongdoing.

Judicial Precedent: Suresh v Canada [2002] SCC 1

In Suresh v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, considered the constitutional limits on deportation, where an individual’s risk of torture exists. The Appellant was a Sri Lankan who sought refugee status in Canada. In 1995, the Canadian government detained him and commenced deportation proceedings pursuant to Section 53(1) of the Immigration Act of Canada, 1985 on security grounds, based on the opinion of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that he was a member and fundraiser for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, an organisation alleged to be engaged in terrorist activity in Sri Lanka, and whose members were also subject to torture in Sri Lanka.  

The Federal Court, Trial Division, upheld as reasonable, the deportation certificate under Section 40.1 of the Immigration Act and, following a deportation hearing, an adjudicator held that the Appellant should be deported.  

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, after notifying the Appellant that she was considering issuing an opinion, declared him to be a danger to the security of Canada, issued such an opinion on the basis of an immigration officer’s memorandum and concluded that he should be deported.

 The Appellant applied for judicial review, alleging that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable, and that the procedures under the Act were unfair.  The Supreme Court held that the Act was constitutional.

While the case centred on human rights protections, it established that Canada could deny asylum to individuals associated with terrorist groups, balancing refugee protection with national security. Suresh affirmed that deportation or exclusion decisions must be reasonable, fair, and weigh individual risks carefully, but do not override security interests.

Case Studies: Canada Federal Court’s Recent Decisions Involving  Nigerian  Politicians

The Case of Douglas Egharevba

Egharevba, a long-standing member of the PDP (1999-2007) and later the APC (until 2017), arrived in Canada seeking asylum on grounds of political persecution. Canadian immigration officials rejected his claim, citing intelligence and international reports linking the PDP to widespread electoral violence, intimidation, and killings. 

The Immigration Appeal Division found Egharevba inadmissible under IRPA Section 34(1)(f), given his party membership. Justice Phuong Ngo upheld this decision, emphasising that the structural violence of some political parties constituted terrorism. The court reasoned that Nigeria’s flawed elections still fall under democratic processes, and that subverting them through violence meets the legal threshold of terrorism and democratic subversion.

The court rejected Egharevba’s defence that political violence was endemic to all parties as “circular” and untenable, solidifying the decision to deny asylum and initiate deportation proceedings.

The Case of Adams O. Ayonote v Canada

Another case worthy of mention is that of Adams Omozakari Ayonote, a Nigerian politician affiliated with the PDP, whose asylum application was rejected in Canada in 2024. He claimed threats to his life from the ruling APC party, but the Refugee Protection Division found his evidence lacking in credibility and dismissed his claim. 

Nigeria’s Response to the Canadian Court Decision

Nigeria hasissued a public notice, that lampoons the description of Nigeria’s political parties as terrorist organisations. In the said public notice, Nigeria raised the issue of interference with its sovereignty. It is trite that customary international law recognises the doctrine of par in parem non habet imperium (meaning: a sovereign cannot exercise imperial rights over another sovereign). This doctrine has been codified under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which deals with non-interference in the affairs of a State party by another. Canada operates separation of powers. The decision was judicial, and not an executive decision of the Government of Canada. Thus, the decision ought to be understood within the context of immigration law, although there is a risk of escalation to other jurisdictions if not overturned. 

Reactions in Nigeria, have been swift and polarised. The PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, criticised the judgement as unjustified and overly broad, arguing that political party membership should not equate to terrorism. The APC’s National Secretary labelled the court “ignorant”, and dismissed the ruling as devoid of credibility or legal basis. 

Media strategists and legal commentators have warned that the decision risks labelling mainstream political opposition as terrorists, blurring lines between legitimate political disagreement and criminal terrorism. Such a precedent threatens Nigeria’s democratic pluralism, and could chill political engagement domestically and among the diaspora.

At the diplomatic level, experts caution that the ruling may strain Canada-Nigeria relations, especially as it compounds other international criticisms over Nigeria’s electoral and human rights record.

Conclusion

The Canadian Federal Court’s decision represents a remarkable judicial acknowledgement of the systemic electoral violence and democratic subversion linked to Nigeria’s political parties, framed within Canada’s stringent immigration and refugee protection laws. By deeming the PDP a subversive organisation, the ruling asserts that political violence undermining democratic institutions equates to terrorism under Canadian law.

While this judicial stance aligns with international principles on asylum and national security, it inevitably raises concerns about collective guilt, the breadth of “terrorism” definitions, and the political ramifications internationally and domestically. Nigeria faces an urgent opportunity to address electoral violence substantively, to avoid diplomatic isolation and safeguard democratic norms.

Recommendations

Nigeria should begin to punish alleged offenders, for their election malfeasance. As long as we continue to bury election violence under the carpet, the international community will eventually teach us what we have refused to teach ourselves. When such happens, it will be preposterous for us to cry foul, and anchor our arguments on sovereignty. The following recommendations are suggested:

• Legal Appeals and Dialogue: Nigeria should consider filing an interested-party appeal in Canada’s Court of Appeal to clarify and contest the ruling’s scope, ensuring balanced judicial consideration.

• Electoral Reforms: Nigerian political parties and institutions must pursue deep reforms to eliminate violence, voter suppression, and intimidation to rebuild democratic legitimacy domestically and abroad.

• International Cooperation: Both Canada and Nigeria should engage diplomatically to bridge misunderstandings, and develop frameworks for managing political asylum cases involving complex political violence backgrounds.

• Clear Guidance on PEPs: Canada may refine policies distinguishing personal culpability from organisational association, to avoid broad blanket designations that could silence legitimate political dissenters.

• Public Awareness: Nigerians at home and abroad should be educated on the international implications of political affiliations related to violence, and the necessity of peaceful democratic participation.

Chukwuemeka Eze, former Lecturer on Diplomatic and Consular Relations Law, Nasarawa State University, Keffi

A Comparative Analysis of Egharevba v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Kingsley Jesuorobo

Factual Background

According to Canadian court records, the Applicant, Douglas Egharevba, is a citizen of Nigeria. He entered Canada in September 2017 and made an inland refugee claim. He declared political party membership in Nigeria’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP) from 1999–2007 and in the All Progressives Congress (APC) from 2007–2017. He confirmed these memberships, during an interview with Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in September 2018.

Initial Inadmissibility Finding (2019): A Canadian Immigration Officer found Egharevba inadmissible under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Section 34(1)(f), linked to Section 34(1)(b.1) (subversion of a democratic institution) and Section 34(1)(c) (terrorism). The Officer’s reasoning was that his party membership linked him to organisations alleged to have engaged in political violence and electoral subversion. The Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (ID) (2020) disagreed, finding insufficient evidence that PDP or APC leadership intended or directed such acts, or that leadership had meaningful control over members. The ID concluded that, the Minister had not established inadmissibility. The Minister appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and provided additional evidence (2024). The IAD reversed the ID decision, holding that:

The PDP had long engaged in violence and subversion during Nigerian elections (2003 State elections, 2004 local elections).

• Impugned acts included ballot stuffing, box snatching, voter intimidation, and even murder of opponents.

• Such acts were widespread and persistent, making it impossible to dissociate the PDP leadership from them.

• Mr Egharevba’s membership in the PDP alone, was sufficient to trigger inadmissibility under Section 34(1)(f).

The IAD did not rule on APC membership, since the PDP finding was determinative. Mr Egharevba challenged the IAD decision at the Federal Court of Canada (Judicial Review) and the Court gave its decision in June 2025. Before the Federal Court, Mr Egharevba argued that he was only a low-level member with no personal involvement in violence. Justice Ngo held that membership itself is enough under the broad test in Canadian jurisprudence, and dismissed the application.

Contextual Analysis

Preamble

First off, there needs to be clinical contextualisation of the issues thrown up by the Egharevba case. From a Canadian jurisprudential perspective and its global impact premise, the ramifications of the case are seismic. It is a decision whose consequences are quite potentially expansive. In other words, by way of impact, at least within the Canadian legal landscape, the decision can ensnare all individuals with past or present connections to the PDP as being “inadmissible” to Canada. Globally, its ramifications cannot be underestimated either; given the tendencies of Western countries to draw from one another’s jurisprudence with respect to matters of this sort.

Porous Jurisprudential Regime and Democratic Impact in Nigeria

The Canadian Federal Court’s endorsement of the IAD’s approach under IRPA Section  34(1)(f), interpreted broadly to encompass mere membership in a political party alleged to have engaged in acts of subversion or terrorism, concretises a prejudicially porous legal standard.

Low Threshold 

The Canadian jurisprudence makes clear that no personal involvement, knowledge, or significant integration is required – the “membership” net is cast deliberately wide. The low threshold issue, is not new to the Canadian law. The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) / Federal Court (FC) have dealt with the breadth of “membership” issues severally:

In Poshteh v Canada (MCI), 2005 FCA 85, [2005] 3 F.C.R. 487, the Federal Court of Appeal held that “membership” in an inadmissible organisation must receive a broad and unrestricted interpretation. According to the court, “Parliament intended the term “member”, to be given an unrestricted and broad interpretation”.

In Kanagendren v Canada, 2015 FCA 86, [2016] 1 F.C.R. 401, the Federal Court of Appeal reaffirmed the wide net of Section 34(1)(f).  In the words of the court “… nothing in paragraph 34(1)(f) requires or contemplates a complicity analysis in the context of membership. Nor does the text of this provision require a “member” to be a “true” member, who contributed significantly to the wrongful actions of the group. These concepts cannot be read into the language used by Parliament”.

In Lapaix v Canada, 2025 FC 111, the Federal Court emphasised that, even informal participation or support may suffice. The court cited a few authorities thus:

[55] In Mahjoub at paragraphs 92, 96–97, the FCA suggests that passive membership in a group could be insufficient to find someone inadmissible under paragraph 34(1)(f), but that participating in certain activities that support the objectives of the group could be enough (even if these acts are not violent in themselves), even without requiring evidence of an intention to contribute to the group or satisfying a specific mental element (Mahjoub at paras 93–94). Informal participation or support may therefore suffice, to support a finding of membership (Kanapathy v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 459 at para 34).

[56] There is nothing in paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA that requires “a ‘member’ to be a ‘true’ member who contributed significantly to the wrongful actions of the group” (Kanagendren at para 22). On the contrary, the requirements for finding membership in an organisation that engages in subversion within the meaning of paragraph 34(1)(f) are not stringent (Kanagendren at para 22; Mirmahaleh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1085 at para 10; Haqi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1167 at paras 36–37). There is no requirement for genuine or formal membership in an organisation, or a genuine or active participation in the acts of subversion committed by that organisation (Opu v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2022 FC 650 at para 100). Moreover, there is no requirement regarding the significance of one’s integration within the organisation (Poshteh at paras 30–31).

Indeed, in the Egharevba case, the court made it clear that at no stage was Mr Egharevba personally alleged to have committed violence. His inadmissibility rested entirely on his past membership in the PDP, which the IAD and Federal Court concluded was sufficient because of the evidence of the party’s violent history.

All of the foregoing shows how the mechanism of overbreadth operates: membership is interpreted in such a way that, it sweeps in ordinary and low-level members with no personal culpability. This jurisprudence reinforces a problematic precedent: a finding of “reasonable grounds” against a party’s conduct could place every member — past or present — in the same inadmissible category, regardless of whether they engaged in or condoned the acts, thereby, weaponising immigration law against mass segments of a democratic polity.

Democratic Chilling Effect

In Nigeria’s political reality, where the PDP and APC dominate political life, millions of citizens — from grassroots members to occasional volunteers — are technically “members” of these organisations. Applying this standard means that, ordinary political participation could become a basis for Canadian inadmissibility. This calls for more clinical contextualisation of cases. Nigeria is a country emerging from decades of military rule. Participation in major parties, is often the only route to political engagement or influence. If the Canadian inadmissibility regime effectively penalises such membership, it indirectly delegitimises political participation in Nigeria, with a potential to stunt democratic maturation, since majority of the populace hardly has meaningful alternative choices. This may be risky to democratic consolidation, even as it tries to discourage acts that undermine democracy and democratic structures.

Scholars have argued that the exclusionary provisions contained in the Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention ought to suffice, but Canada has consciously and deliberately cast a wider net of inadmissibility so as to have broader control of its immigration system:

International Journal of Refugee Law (2023) – Didem Dogar, The Inadmissibility Scheme Replacing Article 1F Decisions in Canada, critiques how Canada’s inadmissibility regime has evolved to catch individuals without individualised culpability, replacing classic exclusion tests under the 1951 Refugee Convention with broad organisational bars.

Inconsistency in Canadian Application of Law

The decision exposes a policy contradiction.

On the exclusionary side, the IAD and the Federal Court accept that PDP’s alleged historical misconduct, makes all members potentially inadmissible.

On the inclusionary side, Canada routinely grants visas, study permits, and conference invitations to leaders and senior officers of these same parties — the very individuals with the greatest capacity to authorise or direct the misconduct cited.

This dichotomy suggests an incoherent enforcement pattern — a “reverse pyramid” of accountability — where the most powerful actors avoid inadmissibility findings, while low-level or peripheral members face the harshest consequences.

Such inconsistency undermines the principle of equal application of the law, and erodes the credibility of Canada’s security-based inadmissibility determinations. If leaders (arguably more complicit) are not targeted, the blanket application to mere members appears arbitrary and selectively enforced.

Discriminatory Application Against Nigerian Nationals

While IRPA Section 34(1)(f) is facially neutral, in practice this jurisprudence risks operating in a disparate and discriminatory fashion. Many countries — including some close Canadian allies — have experienced electoral violence, voter intimidation, or irregularities (e.g. in parts of South Asia, Latin America, or Eastern Europe). Yet, citizens of those States are rarely subjected to such collective-membership inadmissibility findings, for belonging to a dominant political party.

The PDP/APC context is treated in a way that amplifies Nigeria’s political instability as a trigger for mass inadmissibility, but similar factual patterns elsewhere do not appear to yield equally sweeping consequences.

This produces a de facto nationality-based disproportionality — Nigerian nationals are more likely to be caught in the inadmissibility net for political membership, than similarly situated nationals from other jurisdictions.

If applied uniformly, the Court’s logic could bar large portions of citizenries in multiple countries. The selective operationalisation against Nigerians suggests either an unacknowledged policy bias, or a gap in consistent enforcement standards.

Compelling Insights

“Section 34(1)(f) – Gateway to Discrimination”

An advocacy site, Stop CBSA Egyptian Deportations, discusses Section 34(1)(f) as a pathway to systemic discrimination. In its analysis, it argues that the provision has been implemented without national and consistent oversight and functions as a gateway to discrimination—particularly against nationals of specific countries, including Egyptians, who may be disproportionately affected. Though this source does not mention Nigerians directly, it underscores how the regime risks arbitrarily targeting citizens of certain nations.

Broader Evidence of Discrimination in Canadian Immigration Policy

Other sources reveal national-origin-based disparities, in the Canadian immigration system. For instance, the Canadian Charter Rights Coalition (CCR) raised concerns that security certificate and interdiction policies have had a disproportionately adverse impact on Arabs and Muslims, including delays and outright denials of processing for people from these groups.

Likewise, a government report examining temporary migrant worker programmes acknowledged that certain immigration streams have historical roots in racist and discriminatory foundations, with lasting repercussions for migrants from the Global South. These programmes, the report suggests, continue to embody institutionalised biases—even if unintentional in present form.

Mechanisms of Disparate Impact: If IRPA’s membership-based inadmissibility is broadly applied, individuals from countries where dominant political parties are caught in the mix of the impugned acts may be disproportionately impacted. While defenders of such applications argue the law is neutral, these decisions may nonetheless result in disparate outcomes, especially when certain nationalities are more likely to belong to politically dominant parties involved in electoral violence or subversion.

There have also been Canadian Government & Parliamentary Acknowledgements of Differential National Outcomes, with respect to the administration of Canada’s Immigration laws. 

The Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Report No. 8 (2022), reveals evidence that racial bias may affect visa officer decisions. The report cited concerns that racial bias influences immigration determinations, particularly affecting applicants from Africa.

The Briefings of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to Canadian Parliament (2022–23) documents that study-permit approval rates for African students, were significantly lower than for other regions. This demonstrates how immigration decision-making processes—even when facially neutral—produce disparate outcomes by nationality.

The IRCC Anti-Racism Strategy 2.0 (2021–24) contains acknowledgement that racism exists within IRCC operations; and agrees that reforms are needed. This shows the Federal Government itself, recognises that neutral systems can yield discriminatory outcomes.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also addressed issues of adverse-effects discrimination in the leading case of Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 282, where it ventilated the principle that a law that is facially neutral can violate Section 15 of the Charter if it has a disproportionate impact on a protected group, including national or ethnic origin. This case provides doctrinal foundation for the argument that a neutral IRPA provision (Section 34(1)(f)) can still operate in a discriminatory fashion, if its practical impact is disproportionately borne by Nigerians (or similarly situated nationals).

Conclusion

These authorities and references, when read together, establish that:

1.  Canadian law recognises that facially neutral rules can have discriminatory effects (Fraser).

2.  Section 34(1)(f) is interpreted broadly, catching low-level members with no culpability.

3.  Civil-society and academic critiques, describe the provision as a gateway to discrimination.

4.  Government and Parliamentary evidence, show real disparities in immigration outcomes for African nationals.

5. The Egharevba case exemplifies how this logic uniquely disadvantages Nigerians, given the structure of Nigeria’s political system.

6. Overbreadth in Canada’s “membership” jurisprudence, that risks chilling democratic participation in fragile democracies.

7. Policy inconsistency where leaders avoid sanction, while low-level members are excluded.

8. Potential nationality-based discrimination, as Nigerian political realities are treated more harshly than comparable situations elsewhere.

This makes the Egharevba decision a candidate for policy reconsideration, or for the articulation of clearer safeguards — such as requiring a demonstrable nexus between the individual’s membership role and the impugned acts — to prevent the law from functioning as an instrument of indiscriminate political disenfranchisement on the global stage.

The post Federal Court of Canada’s Judgement: Dampener for Nigerian Asylum Seekers appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​