The Federal High Court in Abuja has declared unconstitutional the move by Professor Pat Utomi, renowned political economist, and his associates to establish what they described as a “shadow government” under the Big Tent Coalition.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, Justice James Omotosho ruled that the idea of a shadow government is alien to Nigeria’s presidential system and therefore has no place in the country’s constitutional framework.
The case was instituted by the Department of State Services (DSS) following the unveiling of the initiative by Professor Utomi earlier this year.
The agency had argued that such a structure would amount to usurping executive powers and could potentially incite disorder.
The DSS, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, sought a declaration that the initiative was illegal.
The service also warned that the project could stir up unrest comparable to the #EndSARS protests, with the possibility of triggering public disorder and violence if left unchecked.
BACKGROUND
On May 5, Professor Utomi announced the formation of the shadow government, describing it as a credible opposition platform to the administration of President Bola Tinubu.
By July, he unveiled members of his shadow cabinet, saying the goal was to provide alternative policy options to the federal government.
However, the federal government, through the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, rejected the move, stressing that Nigeria is not a parliamentary democracy where such arrangements exist.
The Minister insisted that while opposition is central to democracy, it must always operate within the provisions of the law.
THE COURT’S POSITION
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho held that the Nigerian Constitution does not provide for any alternative structure outside the established government.
Quoting Section 14(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the judge noted that the provision makes no allowance for a shadow government.
“The defendant cannot use foreign constitutional models to confuse the people,” Justice Omotosho stated, before declaring the initiative null and void.
UTOMI’S ARGUMENT
Before the judgment, Professor Utomi had filed a preliminary objection seeking the dismissal of the DSS suit.
He argued that the agency lacked the legal standing to challenge his initiative, pointing out that the formation of a shadow cabinet was a civic and political exercise protected under the Constitution.
Utomi further contended that the DSS was attempting to criminalise constitutionally guaranteed rights such as freedom of expression, association, and political participation, as enshrined in Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution.
Nonetheless, the court ruled otherwise, affirming the DSS’s position and striking down the initiative in its entirety.