Hot Source
When Professor Pat Utomi, renowned political economist and former presidential candidate, announced plans to establish a “shadow government” earlier this year, he likely envisioned a platform for civic engagement and policy critique. But what began as an intellectual exercise soon spiralled into a constitutional confrontation, as the Department of State Services (DSS) moved swiftly to challenge the legality of his idea in court. The ensuing legal battle not only tested the boundaries of free expression and political participation in Nigeria’s democracy but also reignited debate over where civic activism ends and subversion begins. Hence, in this report, Sunday Ehigiator provides insight on the issue
In every democracy, citizens are entitled to certain freedoms: the right to speak, to associate, and to participate in governance. But those rights, as sacred as they are, are not without limits.
When exercised beyond constitutional boundaries, they risk colliding with the state’s duty to preserve order. This tension came to life recently in Nigeria, when political economist and 2007 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Professor Patrick Okedinachi Utomi, announced plans to establish what he called a “shadow government.”
To Utomi, it was a civic initiative designed to hold those in power accountable. To the Department of State Services (DSS), it was a dangerous overreach; an attempt to create a parallel authority not recognised by the Constitution. That disagreement would soon set the stage for one of the most talked-about legal showdowns of the year.
DSS Legal Action
In May 2025, the DSS, acting through its legal team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Akinlolu Kehinde, approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking it to determine whether Utomi’s proposed “shadow cabinet” was lawful.
The case, filed as FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, named Utomi as the sole defendant. The security agency argued that the idea of a shadow government was alien to Nigeria’s presidential system and could threaten the country’s fragile stability.
According to the DSS, intelligence reports had revealed that Utomi not only announced the creation of a shadow cabinet but had also gone as far as assigning portfolios to some of his associates under a civic platform known as the Big Tent Association (BTA).
The agency contended that the move amounted to the creation of an unregistered and unrecognised political structure, and if allowed to persist, could incite political unrest or embolden separatist movements.
The DSS maintained that its action in court was not to silence dissent, but to seek judicial clarification on whether such conduct was constitutionally permissible or potentially subversive.
Utomi’s Defence
Utomi, in this instance a ‘Defendant’, in his defence, insisted that the project was misunderstood. He explained that the Big Tent Association was a legally registered organisation, whose purpose was to shadow policy activities and offer alternative policy perspectives, not to operate as an alternative government.
He argued that the initiative was well within his constitutional rights to freedom of expression, association, and participation in governance as guaranteed by Section 14 of the Nigerian Constitution.
The shadow cabinet, he maintained, was merely a tool for civic engagement and intellectual contribution, not an attempt to usurp power. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the DSS’s suit.
He equally stated that Section 14 of the Constitution allows the nation’s citizens to participate in government and that citizens have a right to express themselves as well as associate with others.
Utomi maintained that his actions constitute an usurpation of executive powers and that the shadow government did not constitute a threat to national security. He prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
Court’s Intervention
According to the Certificate True Copy (CTC) of the judgment, dated September 29, 2025, with the suit number, FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, as obtained by THISDAY, in determining the case, Justice James Omotosho formulated three issues for determination. They are: whether the plaintiff has disclosed a reasonable cause of action under the National Security Agencies (NSA) Act to activate the jurisdiction of the court; whether the formation or declaration of a shadow government or shadow cabinet is recognized under the country’s Constitution, and whether the filing of the suit by the plaintiff violates or threatens to violate the fundamental rights of the defendant.
Addressing The First Issue
On the first issue, Justice Omotosho faulted the defendant’s argument that his actions related to civic engagement and the formation of a shadow government, which has nothing to do with internal security.
The judge held that the DSS, an agency saddled with the task of maintaining internal security in the country under the NSA Act, was right to have sued to stop the actions of the defendant, which threaten national security.
Justice Omotosho held that the plaintiff’s case “as presently couched, discloses a reasonable cause of action against the defendant.”
He added that the supporting facts show a link between the actions of the defendant and the internal security of Nigeria.
The judge said: “As stated earlier, a reasonable cause of action does not necessarily mean a suit which will succeed, but one which discloses facts upon which the court can proceed with the suit.
“Consequently, a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the defendant, and this court will assume jurisdiction over the suit.”
Addressing The Second Issue
In resolving the second issue, Justice Omotosho held that, as against the case in the parliamentary system of government, which recognises the idea of a shadow government, Nigeria operates a presidential system that has no provision for such an alternative arrangement.
The judge added that even if the country was practising the parliamentary system, Utomi and his associates were still not qualified to form a shadow government since they are not elected members of the parliament, who are in the opposition.
He noted that from the fact before the court, Utomi is alleged to have made public declarations setting up a shadow government under the umbrella of a registered entity known as the Big Tent Association, an allegation that he (Utomi) admitted in his counter affidavit (one of the documents he filed in court).
The judge noted that there is no provision in the entirety of the Nigerian Constitution or any other statute which allows for a shadow government or a shadow cabinet.
The judge acknowledged the argument that the shadow government project was still in its planning stage, but held that if allowed to mature, Utomi and his associates’ actions could lead to anarchy and a breakdown of law and order.
Justice Omotosho said: “This court takes the view that a reasonable man on the streets of Nigeria is more likely to see the shadow government as being an usurpation of executive powers.”
He said the case is even made worse by the fact that the strange idea of a shadow government in a presidential system is being promoted by a person who once contested an election for the office of the President of the country.
The judge added: “Allowing the defendant to establish a shadow government as of right could lead to the formation of several other shadow governments, because it would be the right of every Nigerian in a population above 230 million people, which could threaten the fragile cohesion of Nigeria.
“This could potentially lead to the formation of 230 million shadow governments, which could be replicated at the state level and the Local Government areas. No doubt, this would lead to anarchy, which this court will not allow.
“A group calling itself a shadow government is capable of inciting civil disobedience to constituted authority. I have carefully perused the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and I do not see any part of it establishing a shadow government or similar government or granting every citizen the right to establish the same.
“I hold without hesitation that the idea or establishment of a shadow government or whatever name it is called is strange and an anathema to our Constitution and laws,” the judge said.
He further held that the use of the term, shadow government, was capable of misleading people into disobeying the laws of the land and engaging in civil disobedience.
The judge concluded on the issue by saying: “A shadow government cannot therefore be allowed free rein as it is capable of causing chaos in the country.”
Justice Omotosho added that the fact that the court found the shadow government idea unlawful did not take away the right of the defendant and his associates to criticise the government, but that they can only do that in manners recognised by the law.
He said: “The defendant and his comrades are at liberty to criticise the government, using their influence as highly educated individuals, without the need to form a parallel government. Doing so is contrary to the clear dictates of Section 1(2) of the Constitution.”
The judge faulted Utomi and his associates’ decision to hide under the umbrella of a limited liability. The Big Tent Association launched their alternative government arrangement.
He said: “This is quite curious as companies limited by shares are usually profit-making enterprises, and not to be used to push political ideology or form a political opposition to the government in power.”
Justice Omotosho held that should Utomi be desirous of forming a shadow government, capable of taking over power, he should register or join a political party to carry out his desires and not register a company and turn the same into a political platform.
Addressing The Third Issue
In resolving the third issue, the judge equally faulted Utomi’s argument that the suit violated his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Quoting some decided cases, Justice Omotosho said: “It is worthy of note that the two rights being claimed by the defendant are part of the rights which can be legally violated.”
He said: “In the interest of public safety and public order, the right to freedom of expression and right to association of the defendant, about the declaration of a shadow government, are unenforceable.
“Associating with like-minded fellows, who are carrying on actions contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is not justifiable. This court will not sit idle and allow persons like the defendant to confuse the country under the guise of fundamental human rights. These rights are not absolute,” the judge said.
The judge noted that Utomi has always exercised his right to freedom of expression as reflected in the many books he has authored before now.
He said: “In light of this, I hold that the defendant is not entitled to his rights to freedom of expression and right to freedom of association concerning declaring a shadow government.
“Allowing the defendant free rein is capable of jeopardising the security of Nigeria and may lead to similar declarations by all manner of groups with different aims and objectives. This cannot be, and the same will be intently resisted by this court.
“In the final analysis, the case of the plaintiff succeeds against the defendant,” the judge said, and proceeded to grant the three reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
The ruling effectively ended Utomi’s shadow cabinet experiment and reaffirmed the primacy of Nigeria’s constitutional order. While some observers see the judgment as a blow to civic innovation, others argue it was a necessary reaffirmation of legal boundaries in Nigeria’s fragile democracy.
