Shadow Govt: DSS drags former presidential candidate to court

A former presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, in the 2007 presidential election, Prof. Patrick Utomi was Wednesday dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja over his decision to form a shadow government in Nigeria.

The Department of State Services,(DSS), in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, accused Prof. Utomi of attempting to illegally usurp the executive powers of President Bola Tinubu.

In the legal action, which was filed through a team of lawyers led by Mr. Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, Utomi was listed as the sole defendant.

Prof. Utomi’s action, the security agency alleged in the suit, was capable of destabilizing the country as it was intended to create chaos.

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

The planned shadow government DSS alleged further is not only an aberration, but that it 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, styled as a shadow government, 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 wants 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.

In an affidavit 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 a shadow government consisting 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 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.

A date is yet to be fixed for the suit to be heard