Court Declares Pat Utomi’s Shadow Cabinet Unlawful

A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred Professor Pat Utomi and his associates from proceeding with their proposed “shadow government” project, declaring it unconstitutional and unlawful.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment on Friday, ruled that the concept of a shadow government or cabinet is alien to Nigeria’s presidential system and amounts to an attempt to create a parallel authority outside the 1999 Constitution.

The Department of State Services (DSS), in its suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, sought to determine whether Utomi’s initiative, launched in May under the banner of the Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government, is lawful.

According to the DSS, it represents an unconstitutional attempt to establish a parallel authority capable of undermining the administration of President Bola Tinubu.

In its arguments, the DSS maintained that the coalition, made up of figures from various opposition parties, could incite unrest and empower separatist groups if allowed to operate.

Counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, likened the development to early warning signs of insurgencies, insisting that “we know how Boko Haram started, and even IPOB. We must not wait for a crisis to happen before we act.”

The agency therefore urged the court to issue a perpetual injunction restraining Utomi, his associates, and their agents from pursuing the project.

Utomi’s defence team, led by Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, countered that the initiative was not a rival authority but a civic platform designed to critique government performance and propose policy alternatives.

He described the DSS action as an attempt to gag citizens’ voices, stressing that the coalition neither has executive, legislative, nor judicial powers.

“They are trying to chain Nigerians with shackles stronger than those that dehumanised slaves over 500 years ago,” Ozekhome argued.

Opinions from amici curiae (friends of the court) were also presented to give their opinions on the case.

While Joseph Daudu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, faulted the “shadow government” nomenclature as unconstitutional, Joe Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, warned that granting the DSS request could suffocate free expression, especially in the absence of evidence showing that the coalition intended to seize power.

Delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho held that while Utomi is entitled to freedom of expression and association, those rights cannot be stretched to cover activities deemed unlawful or capable of undermining national security.

He stressed that such rights are not absolute, particularly where their exercise could threaten peace, order, or the authority of the democratically elected government.

Justice Omotosho commended the DSS for initiating the suit, agreeing with its argument that Utomi’s move was designed to incite chaos and destabilise the country.

He noted that the planned shadow government posed a grave danger by encouraging political unrest, heightening intergroup tensions, and potentially inspiring separatist or unlawful groups to adopt similar structures.

He further faulted the use of Big Tent Limited, a private company, as the platform for the initiative, ruling that a limited liability company cannot be deployed for partisan or political purposes.

According to the court, Utomi and his allies should instead form or join a political party if they wish to challenge or monitor government activities.

The court proceeded to issue a perpetual injunction restraining Utomi, his agents, and associates from taking any further steps toward forming or operating a shadow government or cabinet.

Citing Sections 1(1), 1(2), and 14(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the judge declared the project unconstitutional, null, and void, stressing that any governance structure outside the provisions of the Constitution would not be recognised.

Justice Omotosho concluded that while civic engagement and criticism of government remain legitimate, the creation of a parallel cabinet amounts to a dangerous precedence.