The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 29 for judgment in a suit filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) against Professor Pat Utomi over his alleged plan to establish what he referred to as “a shadow government” in Nigeria.
Justice James Omotosho scheduled the date after counsel for the DSS, Akinkolu Kehinde (SAN); Utomi’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN); and the amici curiae (friends of the court) made their submissions both for and against the suit.
On June 25, Justice Omotosho had directed all parties to invite at least six eminent legal experts from each of the six geopolitical zones to offer advice on the case, citing its national significance. The judge stated that their opinions would be shared with all parties before the final hearing and judgment.
Among the invited amici curiae were Prof. Ademola Popoola, Professor of International Law and Jurisprudence at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; Vice-Chancellor of Imo State University, Prof. Uchefula Chukwumaeze; and Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Others included Mr. Joe Gadzama (SAN); Prof. Dakas Dakas (SAN), former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Jos; Mrs. Miannaya Essien (SAN); and Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), immediate past NBA President.
During Thursday’s resumed hearing, Justice Omotosho requested all parties to adopt their processes, which they did.
Arguing the DSS’s case, Kehinde stated that Utomi lacked the legal right (locus standi) to establish a “shadow government,” which he argued is not recognized under the 1999 Constitution. He urged the court to dismiss Utomi’s preliminary objection, asserting that the DSS acted within its constitutional mandate by initiating the suit.
Kehinde pointed out that the defendants had not opposed any of the 15 paragraphs in the originating summons. He argued that the plaintiff believed the proposed shadow government aimed to undermine democratic governance.
“No matter how sentimental their concerns may be, no group is allowed to establish any organisation that challenges the authority of the government,” he said, adding that freedom of expression has limitations when it threatens national stability.
He further urged the court to act proactively, stating, “We must not allow the cat to get out of the cage before chasing it.” He warned of the potential dangers, comparing the situation to the early stages of Boko Haram and IPOB.
In response, Ozekhome prayed the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the DSS sought to silence citizens from criticizing the government. He accused the plaintiff of attempting to impose restrictions stronger than the chains used to enslave people centuries ago.
Ozekhome contended that the initiative launched by Utomi was a peaceful, virtual platform intended to offer credible opposition and policy alternatives, not to overthrow the government. He described the group as comprising like-minded individuals and an ombudsman—not a functioning government with a legislature, executive, or judiciary.
He emphasized that there were far more serious crimes like kidnapping, terrorism, and banditry requiring attention and argued that there was no evidence linking the shadow government to any illegal activity. “No Nigerian has proven confusion or unrest as a result of this group,” he said.
Offering his perspective, amicus curiae Joseph Daudu (SAN) said the concern lay not in the group’s actions but in the term “shadow government” itself, which could create public misunderstanding and pose a threat to constitutional order.
Daudu warned that such terminology could enable citizens to bypass legislative processes and undermine legitimate governance from their private domains. He argued that fundamental rights must align with constitutional principles and legal standards.
Gadzama added that breaches of the law could be actual or speculative. He classified the DSS’s claim as speculative, noting that no specific violation had occurred to warrant legal action. He cautioned that granting the DSS’s request could suppress citizens’ rights.
He clarified that the term “government” is broad and not exclusive to sovereign states like Nigeria or the U.S. He invoked Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which addresses the illegal seizure of power, and said there was no evidence the group had taken control of any institution.
Mrs. Essien emphasized that the nature of an entity is defined by its actual characteristics, not by its name. “Calling something a shadow government does not automatically make it illegal,” she said. She urged the court to examine the group’s real activities before ruling.
Maikyau noted that although the group was not recognized by the government, it was known to others. He stated that citizens must operate within the law and reminded the court that Section 45 of the Constitution places limits on individual rights. He praised the DSS for seeking judicial review instead of taking unilateral action.
Maikyau also revealed that the shadow government had existed informally since around 2008 and was not registered until 2023, with its operations never endorsed by the authorities.
Representing Prof. Popoola, Ahmed Raji (SAN) traced the term “shadow government” back to 1910, noting its rise in global political discourse by 1960. He argued that shadow governments are typically functions of parliamentary systems and not suited for a country like Nigeria. Raji added that even where they exist, they are formed by political parties, not individuals. He reiterated that rights are not absolute and that Utomi’s initiative, while well-intentioned, lacked constitutional backing.
A.A. Usman appeared on behalf of Prof. Dakas, while Prof. Chukwumaeze was absent.
Justice Omotosho adjourned the case until September 29 for judgment.
The DSS filed the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, alleging that Utomi’s initiative aimed to create chaos and destabilize the nation. The agency also sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Utomi and his associates from organizing rallies or media engagements related to the matter while it is before the court.
According to the DSS, it received intelligence suggesting that Utomi had concluded plans for protests, road shows, and media appearances.
In a preliminary objection filed by Ozekhome, Utomi requested the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The 2007 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) argued that the DSS’s claims had no legal basis under the National Security Agencies Act, Cap N74, Laws of the Federation, 2004.
He asserted that the formation of a shadow cabinet and engagement in civic discourse fall outside the DSS’s statutory responsibilities as defined by Section 2(3) of the Act. Utomi argued that the reliefs sought by the DSS attempted to criminalize constitutionally protected rights under Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution.
Describing the suit as speculative, incompetent, and lacking legal foundation, Utomi urged the court to strike it out.
In a supporting affidavit, Utomi deposed that the suit was hypothetical and premature, based solely on suspicion without any factual basis. He also claimed that the DSS lacked the legal standing to file the case in its current form.
