In the words of retired American politician and mental health advocate, Patrick J. Kennedy, terrorism is a psychological warfare, while terrorists are those who manipulate the people and change their behaviours by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in society.

His viewpoint on terrorism and terrorists may have regrettably become a reflection of the intricate situation Nigeria’s democracy finds itself today, after the recent judgment by a Canadian Federal Court’s Immigration Tribunal that negatively branded Nigeria as one.

The Canadian Court, in a historic judgment had declared two major political parties in Nigeria, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as terrorist organisations. The declaration has apparently heightened curiosity and tension regarding Nigeria’s democracy in the eyes of the international community.

While refusing asylum to Douglas Egharevba over his decade-long affiliation with both parties, the court held that the two political parties were deeply implicated in acts of political violence, subversion of democracy, and electoral bloodshed, which have inflicted harm and terror on Nigerians.

In the judgment delivered over two months ago, precisely on June 17, Justice Phuong Ngo had dismissed Egharevba’s application for judicial review after Canada’s Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) found him inadmissible under the security provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had hinged his ruling on the claims by Egharevba, who claimed to have joined the PDP at its founding stage in 1999 and later defected to the APC.

Although Egharevba had insisted that he had never personally engaged in terrorism or subversion, however, Justice Ngo was unconvinced when he wrote that “the conduct of individuals who are members of the parties, 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 to dissociate the leadership of the party from their actions.”

According to court filings, Egharevba entered Canada in September 2017 and disclosed his political history in a Background Declaration Form. Under questioning by the Canada Border Services Agency in 2018, he confirmed his eight-year PDP membership before switching to the APC.

Canadian immigration authorities had flagged his affiliations, citing intelligence and international reports that linked both parties to electoral misconduct and politically motivated killings.

The IAD had focused on the PDP’s record during the 2003 and 2004 polls as “sufficient and determinative” for his case, but the court acknowledged evidence that political violence was not unique to one party, reflecting a broader culture of malpractice in Nigeria’s political class.

The declaration of Egharevba’s inadmissibility under section 34 of the IRPA, covering terrorism and subversion of democracy in January 2019, resulted in IAD’s initially ruling in his favour in 2020, based on insufficient evidence to prove that party leadership directly orchestrated killings or intended to undermine democracy, but the Minister had appealed with new evidence.

Expectedly, the reactions from many political watchers since the news broke in Nigeria were confirmations that the judgment was not just a mere immigration decision but a consequential political earthquake that has reverberated far beyond Canada’s borders.

The judgment is obviously not just about Egharevba, but a dangerous precedent that, if democratic nations don’t push back on this kind of overreach, they may one day find their politics on trial in a foreign court.

From the ruling party to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there has been no end in their efforts in struggling to disassociate and extricate themselves from the derogatory profiling and negative branding from the North American judiciary.

Miffed by the judgment, APC National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Basiru, and the National Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka, have tried to dissociate the ruling party from the complexity of the derogatory terrorism tags.

Reacting, Basiru had argued that APC was not even a party to the suit, contending that “the court does not even have jurisdiction to determine the status of a Nigerian recognised political party, let alone declaring it as a terrorist organisation.

“The so-called judgment was obviously delivered from a jaundiced perspective and within the narrow confines of determining eligibility for asylum by an applicant. The APC is a credible democratic political organisation and does not seek legitimacy from a foreign bench and under a law that has no extraterritorial application,” he said.

Basiru however added that “it is unfortunate that some desperate and unpatriotic Nigerians will allow the name of the country to be brought to unpalatable commentary by racist judges on account of self-contrived application for asylum.”

In his responses, Morka, the APC’s spokesperson, not only dismissed the court judgment with a wave of the hand but also urged party faithful, supporters, and all Nigerians to disregard it as false and misleading.

Appraising it from a legal perspective in a statement last weekend, Morka noted: “We wish to state categorically that the Canadian court did not declare APC a terrorist organisation, contrary to highly erroneous media reports in circulation. For the record, APC was not in existence as of 2007. The party was registered in 2013. The Applicant’s claim of membership of APC as of 2007 is evidently false, as he could not have been a member of APC, which didn’t exist at the time.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we make bold to state that the court never made any determination on the question of terrorism in its decision. Clearly, the reports that APC was declared a terrorist organisation by the Canadian court in this matter are patently erroneous, if not mischievous. The court did not make such a declaration and could not have done so as that would be an unjustifiable overreach and a major breach of fair hearing, among other due process rights, given that APC was not a party to the proceedings.

“Such a decision would also have been of absolute irrelevance as being made without jurisdiction, and of no extraterritorial applicability or significance. We urge our party faithful, supporters, and all Nigerians to disregard the reports as false and misleading,” he added.

Expectedly, the Federal Government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, equally waded in, describing it as an erroneous judgment.

Spokesperson of the ministry, Kimiebi Ebienfa, noted last week that the classification is not only reckless but also constituted an unacceptable interference in Nigeria’s internal affairs and democratic processes.

He noted: “The Court made a sweeping accusation against the entire membership of the political parties that have produced democratically elected presidents, instead of focusing on individuals found wanting. The larger ramification of the decision is that every member of the mentioned political parties is a potential terrorist, and that is completely false and unacceptable.

”Nigeria is a sovereign nation with a robust legal and constitutional framework governing political activities. Our political parties operate within the ambit of the law and are integral to the country’s vibrant democracy. To associate legitimate political entities with terrorism without credible evidence is a grave misrepresentation that undermines Nigeria’s democratic institutions and could incite unnecessary tension,” he said.

Setting the tone for a diplomatic row, the ministry had directed the Canadian authorities to immediately retract the designation and refrain from actions it claimed could be misconstrued as endorsing politically motivated narratives against Nigeria.

“Diplomatic channels remain open for constructive dialogue, and we urge the government of Canada to engage with the relevant Nigerian institutions to rectify this error. Nigeria remains committed to the global fight against terrorism and has made significant strides in countering extremist groups within its borders.

“Therefore, the international community should disregard this misguided ruling and reaffirm its confidence in Nigeria’s democratic governance and rule of law. We urge Nigerian nationals to refrain from making unfounded allegations against the country under the pretext of seeking asylum or favours from foreign entities,” he added.

However, despite the spirited protests by the concerned authorities, the declaration of the two major political parties as a terrorist organisation may not have certainly come as a surprise to many disgruntled Nigerians, going by the hostile impressions they hold against them and their terrorist-like modus operandi.

In the perception of many pundits and Nigerians, there is little or no difference between the terrorists operating from the forests and Nigerian politicians, judging by their modus operandi in handling their victims.

While the main terrorists attack with guns and other physical instruments of warfare, the politicians deploy, to their advantage, deceptive, fake election promises, unleash mayhem, and all manners of electoral violence to intimidate, rig, and manipulate elections in their favour to the detriment, to terrorise the masses.

In the real sense of it, according to pundits, there is nothing more terroristic than the APC and PDP deliberately refusing to build well-equipped, functional hospitals to cater to the health needs of the sick masses, fixing the roads that have become death-traps across many parts of the country, despite the promises and reassurances in their campaign manifestos.

“The fact that majority of the politicians that populated the two parties have history and records of involvement in spearheading ballot box snatching, intimidation, and other forms of electoral violence, the judgment, though a weighty caricature to undermine Nigeria’s democratic institutions and incite unnecessary tension, rightly depicts the terroristic behaviour of the average Nigerian politician,” an APC chieftain told Daily Sun in confidence.

Political terrorism does more than kill the innocent masses. It undermines democratic governments even in mature democracies in the United States and Europe. The escalating level of electoral violence orchestrated by Nigerian politicians, in their desperation to clinch power, has become alarmingly mind-boggling and similar to the modus operandi of the terrorists operating in the forests.

It was Rudolph Giuliani, an American politician and disabled lawyer, who said that when someone uses the slaughter of innocent people to advance a so-called political cause, at that point the political cause becomes immoral and unjust, and should be eliminated from any serious discussion and debate.

The reality of the declaration of APC and PDP as terrorist organisations may have stemmed from the fact that under their watch, terrorist activities had helplessly spiraled uncontrollably in many parts of the country, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives and displacements of several Nigerians outside the comforts of their ancestral homes and farmlands.

Under the administration of the two political parties, Boko Haram and other dreaded insurgents, operating mainly in the northern parts of the country, festered and were rightly declared a terrorist group.

Regrettably, the derogatory declaration by the Canadian court has already become an instrument of a smear campaign against the two political parties. For example, an opposition party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) had latched on to it as a campaign stunt ahead of last weekend’s legislative by-elections, warning the Nigerian electorate not to vote for the terrorist political parties.

In a statement issued in Ibadan by the party’s Oyo State chapter chairman, Michael Ogunlade, warning against voting for the two parties, stressed that “This followed the landmark judgment from a Federal Court in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which reportedly classified the APC and PDP as terrorist groups over alleged involvement in ballot box snatching, intimidation, and electoral violence.

“The judgment confirmed long-standing allegations by civil society and opposition leaders about the violent nature of elections under both parties. The court ruling is a wake-up call to Nigerian voters to end the cycle of fear, bloodshed, and corruption that has marred our democracy for over two decades.

“Voting for APC or PDP is a vote for impunity. The world is watching us, and the Canadian Court’s decision has put our political system under international scrutiny. The people must now rise to reject violence and vote for a party with clean hands and a genuine track record of service. The SDP, unlike the dominant parties, has consistently run issue-based campaigns and avoided thuggery,” Ogunlade added.

For Lauretta Onochie, former Special Assistant on Digital and Social Media to ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, the ruling party, having lost the values of fairness, equity, justice, and accountability Buhari championed, may be guilty as charged.

Onochie, in a strongly worded letter she wrote to late Buhari on her verified Facebook page last week, sarcastically noted: “Dear Baba, APC is now a Private Enterprise. It has lost all the values you stood for. Fairness, equity, justice, equality, etc., have all been ‘kpaied’ (destroyed).

“APC chieftains assault airport staff. They hijack planes and then are rewarded as ambassadors. Iniquities are sprayed with roses and perfumes, unless you belong to the opposition. Sorry Baba, there is no more APC. Thank you for showing us that righteousness is possible among Nigerians and in Nigeria. God bless your soul,” she said. (Daily Sun)