•DSS operatives and Prof. Pat Utomi
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, fixed June 25 for the hearing of a suit filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) against Prof. Pat Utomi over his alleged plan to establish what he called, “a shadow government” in the country.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after DSS’ counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, moved a motion ex-parte to serve court documents on Utomi in his Lagos address by means of courier service, reports NAN.
The development followed the inability of the plaintiff to effect the service of the court papers on Utomi, a Professor of Political Economy and Management Expert.
The security agency gave Utomi’s Lagos address as, “No. 6, Balarabe Musa Crescent, off Samuel Manuwa Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, State.”
After Kehinde argued the motion, Justice Omotosho granted the application and ordered Utomi to be served by substituted means.
The judge adjourned the matter until June 25 for hearing.
The DSS, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, prayed the court to declare the planned shadow government as an attack on the constitution.
In the suit, Utomi, the 2007 Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), is sued as sole defendant.
The security outfit, in the suit filed on May 13 by Kehinde contended that the move by Utomi was intended to create chaos and destabilise the country.
The DSS argued that not only was the planned shadow government an aberration, it constituted a grave attack on the constitution and a threat to the democratically elected government that is currently in place.
It expressed concern that such a structure, styled as a “shadow government,” if left unchecked, may incite political unrest, cause inter-group 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.
The plaintiff, therefore, urged the court to declare the purported “shadow government” or “shadow cabinet” being planned by Utomi and his associates as “unconstitutional and amounts to an attempt to create a parallel authority not recognised by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
The department also sought a declaration 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 prayed the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction, restraining 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).”
The plaintiff, in its grounds of argument, hinged its prayers on the fact that Section 1(1) of the Constitution declares its supremacy and binding force on all persons and authorities in Nigeria.
It added that Section 1(2) prohibits the governance of Nigeria or any part thereof except in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.
According to the DSS, Section 14(2Xa) states that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government through the constitution derives all its powers and authority.
It contended that Utomi’s proposed shadow government lacked constitutional recognition and authority, thereby contravening the aforementioned provisions.
The plaintiff further stated in a supporting affidavit that it is the principal domestic intelligence and security agency of the Federal Republic of Nigeria statutorily mandated to detect and prevent threats to the internal security of Nigeria, including subversive activities capable of undermining national unity, peace and constitutional order.
The DSS added that it is statutorily empowered to safeguard the internal security of Nigeria and prevent any threats to the lawful authority of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Its constituent institutions.
It stated that it has monitored, “through intelligence reports and open source material, public statements and interviews granted by the defendant, Professor Patrick Utomi, in which he announced the purported establishment of what he temed a ‘shadow government’ or ‘shadow cabinet,’comprising of several persons that make up its ‘Minister.’
“The ‘shadow government’ or ‘shadow cabinet’ is an unregistered and unrecognised 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 (Utomi), 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,” it said.
The DSS said in the discharge of Its statutory duties, it had 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.”
The agency said that it would be in the interest of justice, national security and the rule of law for the court to declare the existence and operations of the defendant unconstitutional and illegal.
