From Politics to Terrorism? Canada’s dangerous redefinition of Nigeria’s democracy
By Olufemi Soneye
When a Canadian federal court recently declared Nigeria’s two largest political parties, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as terrorist organisations under Canadian law, it wasn’t just an immigration decision. It was a political earthquake with consequences that could reverberate far beyond Canada’s borders.
This decision, made during an asylum case involving Nigerian politician Douglas Egharevba, was based solely on his past membership of these parties. No evidence was presented to show his personal involvement in violence or terrorism. Yet, under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, affiliation alone with a designated terrorist group is enough to bar entry.
The implications are deeply troubling. Legally, the ruling sets a precedent that political affiliation, no matter how commonplace or deeply-rooted, can be equated with terrorism. Diplomatically, it risks souring Canada-Nigeria relations by painting the country’s core democratic institutions with the same brush as extremist groups.
For Nigerians abroad, especially those who have ever held a party membership card, it signals heightened scrutiny, denied visas, and rejected asylum claims not only in Canada but also potentially in other Western democracies that may follow suit.
Even more alarming is what this means for democracy. Labeling established political parties as terrorist organisations undermines their legitimacy at home and abroad. It blurs the vital line between dissent and danger, between governance and extremism. Once such a label is applied, it can be wielded, domestically or internationally as a tool to silence opposition, suppress political participation, and erode civil liberties.
Terrorism is a grave charge. To weaponise it against political organisations that have governed a democracy for decades is to dilute the meaning of the term and cheapen the fight against genuine extremists. It also blurs the essential boundary between political disagreement and criminal threat, a boundary that safeguards democratic life.
