On August 18, 2025, a landmark decision by the Canadian Federal Court, presided over by Justice Phuong Ngo, dismissed the asylum appeal of Douglas Egharevba and controversially labeled Nigeria’s two principal political parties—the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)—as “terrorist organisations” under Canadian law. According to the judge, both parties allegedly employed violence, coercion, and democratic subversion to acquire and retain power Vanguard News+1The Guardian Nigeria.
Falana’s Call to Action
Femi Falana, SAN, Nigeria’s foremost human rights lawyer, wasted no time responding. He condemned the knee-jerk reactions from both parties—APC calling the court “ignorant” and PDP dismissing it as “mischievous”—as nothing more than deflections Vanguard NewsThe Guardian Nigeria.
Instead, Falana challenged:
“Instead of abusing the Canadian judge, the APC and PDP should urgently adopt legal measures to prove that they are not terrorist organisations.”
He emphasized that rather than trading insults, both parties should seek legal recourse to clear their names and counter the implications of the judgment Vanguard News+1.
Legal and Diplomatic Repercussions
Falana warned that the Canadian ruling could have far-reaching diplomatic consequences. He highlighted that, if the ruling is registered abroad—in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, or elsewhere—members of APC and PDP may face visa revocations, deportations, and international stigma Vanguard NewsThe Guardian NigeriaTribune Online.
He urged the Federal Government to go beyond mere diplomatic protests:
-
Engage immigration lawyers: Seek immediate legal strategies to mitigate the judgment’s impact and remove the “stigma of infamy” Vanguard NewsThe Guardian Nigeria.
-
Enforce Nigeria’s Electoral Act: Hold perpetrators of electoral violence and rigging accountable to restore democratic integrity Vanguard News+1The Guardian NigeriaTribune Online.
Falana’s Core Arguments
-
Domestic legal context: Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022 broadly defines terrorism to include politically motivated violence, intimidation, coercion, or disruption—actions which Falana asserts have become alarmingly common during elections Vanguard NewsThe Guardian Nigeria.
-
Electoral violence: Falana cited longstanding practices of rigging, use of armed thugs, and involvement of security forces in manipulating election outcomes. He lamented how murderous attacks on voters go unpunished, and how courts often legitimize stolen mandates The Guardian NigeriaVanguard NewsTribune Online.
-
Toxic political rhetoric: Falana traced a culture of violence back through speeches by political leaders:
-
Former President Obasanjo calling the 2003 elections a “do-or-die affair.”
-
Buhari’s 2011 warning that a repeat of rigging would leave “dog and baboon soaked in blood.”
-
Tinubu’s 2023 call to “fight for power, grab it, snatch it, and run with it.” The Guardian NigeriaVanguard NewsTribune Online.
-
These examples, he argues, reinforce the Canadian ruling rather than contradict it.
Why This Matters
-
Global Reputation: The ruling challenges the global legitimacy of Nigeria’s foremost political parties, potentially impacting travel, trade, and diplomatic standing.
-
Urgency for Reform: Falana’s challenge spotlights the urgent need to address electoral violence, impunity, and judicial complicity.
-
Legal Precedent: It sets a precedent—political conduct may now be judged on international legal standards, not just domestic politics.
-
Political Accountability: The call for legal action shifts the narrative from denial to actionable accountability.
