A Federal High Court in Abuja is poised to deliver a pivotal judgment on Monday, September 29, 2025, in a suit filed by the Department of State Services (DSS), challenging the establishment of a so-called “shadow government” by renowned public intellectual, Prof. Pat Utomi.
The DSS has accused Utomi of overstepping constitutional boundaries by attempting to set up a parallel government that undermines the authority of the Bola Tinubu-led administration. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, has stirred intense debates about the nature of political opposition and citizens’ rights to critique government policies.
In May 2025, Prof. Utomi launched the “Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government,” a movement composed of various opposition parties. According to Utomi, the coalition was created to provide a credible opposition force, highlighting the perceived failures of the Tinubu administration while also offering policy alternatives aimed at improving governance.
However, the Federal Government has strongly condemned the initiative, describing it as an “aberration” and an illegal attempt to usurp executive powers, which could pose a threat to national security. The DSS claims that Utomi’s proposal amounts to establishing a shadow authority, potentially fueling unrest and emboldening separatist movements.
In the legal battle, the DSS has called on the court to issue a perpetual injunction to prevent Utomi and his associates from pursuing the project. The security agency argued that such a structure could destabilize the country, drawing parallels to the early stages of insurgent movements like Boko Haram and IPOB.
“We cannot afford to wait until a crisis arises,” DSS counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) warned during the proceedings. “What we are seeing could be the precursor to something far worse.”
In contrast, Utomi’s legal counsel, Mike Ozekhome, has vehemently defended the initiative, describing it not as a rival government but as a civic platform intended to scrutinize the actions of the current administration. Ozekhome argued that the project was designed to foster public debate and offer solutions, not challenge the government’s constitutional authority.
“Attempting to criminalize such an initiative is a direct assault on the rights of Nigerians to engage in meaningful policy discussions,” Ozekhome stated in his final address. “They are trying to impose shackles on Nigerians, stronger than those used to dehumanize slaves over 500 years ago.”
Seven amici curiae (friends of the court) have also weighed in on the case, further complicating the matter. One of them, Joseph Daudu (SAN), contended that the concept of a “shadow government” was unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent, while Joe Gadzama (SAN) cautioned against stifling free speech. Gadzama argued that no evidence had been presented to suggest the initiative aimed to take over government functions.
