A controversial court ruling has barred a tax-paying Nigerian worker from asylum, igniting accusations of a double standard in a country that desperately needs immigrants.
Douglas Egharevba came to Canada in 2017 and did exactly what the country asks of its newcomers: he went to work.
He has been a steady presence in the construction industry for years, paying his taxes. And, by his own account, he forgoes COVID-19 relief benefits to continue working in an essential service. He has no criminal record. Yet, Mr. Egharevba has been denied asylum in Canada.
His case was not rejected due to any personal misconduct.
Instead, a Federal Court decision has effectively branded him a terrorist by association. The court upheld a ruling by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) that designated Nigeria’s two largest political parties—the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)—as organizations that have engaged in terrorism.
The reason: their use of violence and intimidation for political ends.
The sweeping decision has thrown a harsh spotlight on Canada’s own internal contradictions. It drew a sharp rebuke from the Nigerian government for its “baseless classification” and “unacceptable interference,”
It raises urgent questions about systemic bias in an immigration system that, on the one hand, is trying to attract a record number of immigrants, and on the other, is erecting seemingly arbitrary barriers for those already here.
At the heart of the issue is a jarring paradox.
Canada has set an ambitious target to welcome 500,000 new permanent residents in 2025, largely to fill critical labour shortages in sectors like construction, where Mr. Egharevba works.
Yet, the very system designed to vet newcomers is producing rulings that seem divorced from this economic reality.
The court’s decision to label Nigeria’s mainstream political parties as terrorist entities has profound implications.
It effectively disqualifies a vast swath of Nigerian society from seeking protection in Canada, based not on individual actions, but on broad political affiliation in a country with a complex and often violent democratic history.
“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,” the Nigerian government said in a statement.
This ruling also fuels accusations of a diplomatic double standard. The Canadian government is currently in a severe diplomatic standoff with India, a global power it seeks to cultivate as a partner, over allegations that the Indian government was involved in the assassination of a Canadian Sikh leader on Canadian soil.
Despite India’s protests, Canada has stood firm in protecting the rights of Sikh activists. Critics now ask why the government applies a different standard to a major African democracy.
The case taps into a sensitive and statistically undeniable issue in Canada: systemic bias within its justice and immigration systems.
Black and Indigenous peoples are incarcerated at staggering rates. While Black people make up about 4% of Canada’s population, they represent 9% of the federal prison population, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator.
The overrepresentation of Indigenous people is even more severe; they constitute 5% of the national population but a shocking 32% of those in federal prisons.
This data provides a grim backdrop to an immigration system where outcomes can vary drastically depending on the country of origin.
An analysis of asylum claims offers a window into these disparities.
According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, in 2023, the acceptance rate for Nigerian refugee claimants was 39%.
By contrast, claimants from countries like Afghanistan and Syria saw acceptance rates of 90% and 95%, respectively. For Iran and Turkey, it reached 98%.
While each case is judged on its merits, such wide statistical variations raise questions about unconscious bias and prevailing geopolitical narratives influencing decision-makers.
The Egharevba case forces an uncomfortable national conversation.
As Canada projects an image of a tolerant, multicultural nation in need of global talent, its own systems are creating outcomes that suggest a different story.
A man who has worked, paid taxes, and stayed out of trouble is now facing removal because of a broad-brush ruling that conflates the actions of political organizations with the character of their individual members.
For a country built by immigrants, this single case may reveal more about its own biases than it does about the man it has chosen to exclude.