A high-stakes legal drama is unfolding at the Federal High Court in Abuja as prominent political economist and professor, Pat Utomi, finds himself at the center of a constitutional storm.
At issue: his controversial effort to launch a “shadow government,” which the Department of State Services (DSS) claims is a threat to Nigeria’s democratic order.
Justice James Omotosho has scheduled September 29 as the judgment day in a suit that has ignited debates about the limits of free expression, civic participation, and the definition of legitimate governance in Nigeria.
The DSS, through its counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), told the court that Utomi’s so-called “shadow government” lacks any constitutional basis and could pave the way for civil unrest.
Drawing parallels with insurgent groups like Boko Haram and IPOB, Kehinde warned, “We must not wait for a crisis to happen before we act.” He emphasized that while freedom of expression is protected, it must not be used to destabilize an elected government.
The security agency is asking the court to reject Utomi’s preliminary objection and affirm its right to intervene based on national security concerns.
But Utomi’s lead counsel, renowned rights advocate Professor Mike Ozekhome (SAN), countered that the DSS is attempting to muzzle legitimate dissent.
He framed the suit as an attempt to “chain Nigerians” from expressing opposing views and engaging in civic activism.
“What is the DSS afraid of?” Ozekhome asked rhetorically. “This shadow cabinet does not have a legislature, executive, or judiciary. It merely exists to critique, not control.”
According to Ozekhome, the group operates more like a think tank than a rival administration and focuses on policy reform and democratic renewal.
In a rare move, seven amici curiae—independent legal experts—were invited to weigh in. Their views were split.
Joseph Daudu (SAN) argued that even the term “shadow government” could lead to societal confusion and a constitutional crisis. “It’s about perception,” he said. “People may believe it undermines the National Assembly.”
Joe Gadzama (SAN) dismissed the suit as speculative and warned that granting it could dampen citizen engagement. “If they had committed a crime, the DSS would have acted already,” he said.
READ ALSO: SSS Asks Court to Stop Utomi from Promoting Shadow Govt
Mrs. Miannaya Essien (SAN) offered a metaphorical take: “If I say I’m a lion, does that make me one?” suggesting labels alone are insufficient grounds for legal action.
Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), former NBA president, urged caution, pointing out that while Utomi’s group isn’t recognized, the DSS should be commended for choosing the court route.
Professor Ademola Popoola (via Ahmed Raji, SAN) traced the term “shadow government” to early 20th-century parliamentary systems. He concluded it was neither appropriate nor legal in Nigeria’s presidential democracy.
This case could redefine the boundaries between civic activism and subversion in Nigeria.
It tests not only the elasticity of constitutional rights but also the government’s tolerance for organized critique.
With tensions rising amid growing economic and social unrest, the court’s ruling on September 29 is likely to set a significant precedent on what forms of civic engagement are permissible under the law.
Until then, the legal and political establishment will be watching closely. Is a shadow cabinet a threat—or simply the voice of an informed opposition?