Court declares Pat Utomi’s shadow govt illegal

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday declared the decision of a former presidential candidate, Prof. Patrick Utomi, to form a shadow government in the country as illegal and unconditional.

The court, in the judgment that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, held that the concept or formation of a shadow government/cabinet is alien to both the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the presidential system of government that the nation is practising.

Consequently, it issued an order, restraining Prof. Utomi and his associates from proceeding with the plan, saying they could not hide under their right to criticise or hold the government accountable, to engage in unlawful activities.

The judgement followed a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, which was brought before the court by the Department of State Services, DSS.

The court held that the agency acted appropriately by approaching it to stop an action capable of posing a threat to national security.

The. DSS had in the suit accused Prof. Utomi who was the candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, in the 2007 presidential election, of attempting to illegally usurp the executive powers of President Bola Tinubu.

It told the court that the defendant’s action was capable of destabilising the country as it was intended to create chaos.

According to the agency, the planned shadow government was not only an aberration but constituted a grave attack on the Constitution and a threat to the democratically elected government that is currently in place.

It told the court that such a structure, if left unchecked, may incite political unrest, cause intergroup tensions and embolden other unlawful actors or separatist entities to replicate similar parallel arrangements, all of which would pose a grave threat to national security.

Among other reliefs, the plaintiff prayed the court to declare the purported “shadow government” or “shadow cabinet” being planned by the defendant and his associates as “unconstitutional as it amounts to an attempt to create a parallel authority not recognized by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

It prayed the court to declare that under Sections 1(1), 1(2) and 14(2)(a) of the Constitution, “the establishment or operation of any governmental authority or structure outside the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). is unconstitutional, null, and void.”

The plaintiff further urged the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction, restraining Prof. Utomi, his agents and associates from “further taking any steps towards 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).”

Highlighting some of the grounds upon which it approached the court, the DSS maintained that section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, declared its supremacy and binding force on all persons and authorities in Nigeria.

It stressed that section 1(2) prohibited the governance of Nigeria or any part thereof except in accordance with provisions of the Constitution.

It told the court that section 14(2a) of the Constitution stated that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government, through the Constitution, derives all its powers and authority.

The DSS argued that Prof. Utomi’s proposed shadow government lacked legal imprimatur as it contravened various portions of the Constitution.

In an affidavit it filed in support of the suit, the plaintiff described itself as the principal domestic intelligence and security agency in the country that is statutorily mandated to detect and prevent threats to internal security, including subversive activities capable of undermining national unity, peace and constitutional order.

It averred that it is statutorily empowered to safeguard the nation by preventing threats to the lawful authority of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Its constituent institutions.

It told the court that the defendant had announced the purported establishment of what he temed as shadow government comprising of several persons that made up its Ministerial cabinet.

“The ‘shadow government’ or ‘shadow cabinet’ is an unregistered and unrecognized body claiming to operate as an alternative government. contrary to the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“The defendant, through public statements, social media, and other platforms, has announced the formation of this body with the intent to challenge the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of Nigeria.

“While inaugurating the ‘shadow cabinet’, the defendant stated that it ls made up of the Ombudsman and Good Governance portfolio to be manned by Dele Farotimi; the policy Delivery Unit team consisting of Oghene Momoh, Cheta Nwanze, Daniel Ikuonobe, Halima Ahmed, David Okonkwo and Obi Ajuga: and the council of economic advisers.

“Based on the intelligence gathered by the plaintiff, the activities and statements made by the defendant and his associates are capable of misleading segments of the Nigerian public, weakening confidence in the legitimacy of the elected government, and fuelling public disaffection,” the DSS added.

More so, it told the court that it was particularly concerned that such a structure, if left unchecked, may incite political unrest that would undermine national security.

“The plaintiff, in the discharge of its statutory duties, has gathered intelligence confirming that the defendant’s actions pose a clear and present danger to Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

“The defendant’s actions amount to an attempt to usurp or mimic executive authority, contrary to sections 1(1), 1 (2), and 14(2Xa) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), which exclusively vests governance in institutions duly created under the Constitution and through democratic elections.

“The Federal Government of Nigeria has made several efforts to engage the defendant to dissuade him from this unconstitutional path, including statements made by the Minister of Information, but the defendant has remained defiant.

“It is In the interest of justice, national security, and the rule of law for this honourable court to declare the existence and operations of the defendant unconstitutional and illegal,” the plaintiff added.