Today, a Federal High Court in Abuja will rule on a case brought by the Department of State Services (DSS) against Prof. Pat Utomi for allegedly planning to set up what he dubbed “a shadow government” in the country.
According to The Nation, Justice James Omotosho picked July 10 after hearing arguments from lawyers for both sides and listening to the seven amici curiae (friends of the court) who the court had invited.
The DSS says that Utomi’s move was meant to cause turmoil and make the country less stable in the case FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025.
The DSS believes that the planned shadow government is not only wrong, but it is also a serious attack on the constitution and a threat to the democratically elected administration that is in place right now.
It said that this kind of structure, called a “shadow government,” could lead to political unrest, cause tensions between groups, and encourage other illegal groups or separatist groups to set up similar parallel structures, all of which are very dangerous for national security.
The plaintiff wants the court to say that Utomi and his friends’ plans for a “shadow government” or “shadow cabinet” are “unconstitutional and an attempt to create a parallel authority not recognized by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
The DSS also wants the court to say that “under Sections 1(1), 1(2), and 14(2)(a) of the Constitution, the creation or operation of any government authority or structure outside the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is unconstitutional, null and void.”
It also wants the court to issue a permanent injunction against Utomi, his agents, and associates “from taking any further steps toward the establishment or operation of a ‘shadow government,’ ‘shadow cabinet,’ or any similar entity not recognized by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
In his last argument on July 10, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), said that Utomi did not have the ability to set up any shadow government because the Constitution does not allow it.
Kehinde said that the plaintiff thinks the shadow government is trying to take away their democratic rights. He also added that no matter how emotional Utomi and his friends’ concerns are, no group is authorized to set up an organization that goes against the government’s authority.
He went on to say, “You have the right to express your freedom, but there is a limit when doing so causes problems with the government of the day.”
“We can’t let the cat out of the cage before we chase it,” he added, pointing out that this could be quite dangerous.
Kehinde remarked, “We know how Boko Haram and even IPOB got started.” We shouldn’t wait for a crisis to happen before we do something.
He asked the court to throw out Utomi’s first objection because the DSS filed the case based on its constitutional rights.
In response, Utomi’s counsel, Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), asked the court to throw out the case.
Ozekhome claimed that the lawsuit wanted to keep Nigerians from speaking out against the current government.
“To chain Nigerians, they are trying to give my lord strong chains, stronger than the ones that dehumanized slaves over 500 years ago.”
He warned the court not to adopt it because it would lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.
He stated, “The court shouldn’t let it happen so that democracy doesn’t go down the drain.”
He asked why the DSS should be fearful of an online campaign that was meant to be a real alternative to the current government.
He says that it just looks at what the government does and how it works and offers remedies in areas like law and education. They argue that it intends to topple the government.
Ozekhome added that the shadow government is only a group of people who think the same way and an ombudsman.
He remarked, “It doesn’t have a legislature, an executive, ministers, or a judiciary like Nigeria or the United States.”
Ozekhome added that the country should focus on crimes like kidnapping, banditry, and terrorism as criminal offenses.
He said that the security organization is merely scared of the word “shadow government” without any proof, thus the suit is a waste of time.
“They want to make a normal shadow government illegal.” Ozekhome added, “No Nigerian has shown the plaintiff that he (Nigerian) is confused, so there is no proof that the group will cause a crisis.”
Joseph Daudu (SAN), one of the amici curiae, remarked in his opinion that the problem with the “shadow government” was not what they had done, but the name they had given it.
“It’s about what people think when they hear the word “government.”
“Such a name could lead to a bad situation in which individuals ignore the National Assembly and stop the work of the legal government from the comfort of their own homes.
“It is strange and full of problems, my lord; it is against the law,” he added.
He said, “No right is being held back” when it comes to basic rights. Utomi has the right to speak up. But when he brings together people who don’t know the procedure, it becomes too much and wrong if the basic rights he wants to protect aren’t related to legal, lawful, and constitutional issues.
Another friend of the court, Joe Gadzama (SAN), remarked that there are two kinds of constitutional violations: one is hypothetical and the other is real.
Gadzama said that speculative violation happens when the government says there is a breach of the constitution. He also said that people supporting the shadow government have not done anything to justify the lawsuit.
He warned that giving the plaintiff what they want “will stifle the enthusiasm of the people in the exercise of their rights and expression.”
Gadzama said that the DSS would have responded if the problems were criminal. He said, “Yes, there could be breaches, but the court is the last hope of the common man.”
He said that the name should not be the problem, and he added, “The dictionary definition of a government might be a group or organization.
“Government” doesn’t just mean the UK, Nigeria, or the US. We are practicing democracy that is focused on people, and we must constantly get our powers from the people.
“We should always listen to them,” he said, referring to Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which, he said, shows when a group tries to take over the country.
He claimed that groups like Boko Haram publicly claim to be in charge, “but there is no proof that the shadow government has taken any control.”
He argued that Section 40 lets people gather peacefully and that just because the government doesn’t know about them doesn’t imply they’ve done anything unlawful.
Mrs. Miannaya Essien (SAN), another friend of the court, argued that the qualities and traits of an item are what make it what it is, not what it says it is.
“Does it mean I’m a cat if I say I’m a cat? I am still human even if I roar and say I am a lion.
“Because of this, using those words doesn’t make them wrong,” she remarked.
She told the court to look at the law and see what the “shadow government” is really doing before making a decision.
Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), remarked that even though the government doesn’t recognize the group, other people do.
He said, “As a citizen, actions must be within the law.”
Maikyau also argued that Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution limits rights, which he said are not absolute.
He praised the DSS for not breaking the law and instead taking the case to court.
He added that the “shadow government” had been around since 2008, which is nearly 15 years without being registered till 2023.
“But the authorities don’t support what it’s doing,” he stated.
Professor Ademola Popoola from Obafemi Awolowo University says that the term “shadow government” first became popular in 1910, when it was first studied by academics.
Ahmed Raji (SAN) read Prof. Popoola’s opinion in court. He remarked, “It was normal around 1920 and popular around 1960.”
He went on to say that Popoola’s research shows that a “shadow government” is a part of a parliamentary system and is not allowed in a country like Nigeria.
Prof. Popoola responded, “Even if it were allowed, it would be by a political party, not a person,” and he pointed out that human rights are not absolute.
He went on to say, “You can’t hide behind a shadow government that the 1999 Constitution doesn’t recognize to confuse the people.”
“Utomi is a great Nigerian.” He said, “He can do this by himself, not as a group.”
About the Author
