Utomi’s Bold Experiment Meets the Gavel
Professor Pat Utomi, one-time presidential candidate and political economist, stirred the waters when he unveiled plans to create a shadow cabinet — an alternative platform of technocrats and opposition figures designed to critique government policy and “hold leaders accountable.”
But the Department of State Services (DSS) saw danger where Utomi saw democracy. In its suit, Nigeria’s secret police described the project as a backdoor attempt to set up a parallel authority capable of destabilising the country.
On Monday, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja agreed. In a stinging verdict, he branded Utomi’s proposal “unconstitutional and alien to Nigeria’s presidential system,” declaring that the move posed a “grave threat to national security.”
Rights of association and expression are not absolute,“They cannot be stretched to legitimise structures unknown to our constitution.
Court Endorses DSS Warning
The DSS had argued that the shadow cabinet could incite unrest, embolden separatist groups, and erode confidence in elected institutions. Justice Omotosho not only upheld the agency’s case but praised its decision to intervene, insisting security agencies have a duty to forestall potential chaos.
“Rights of association and expression are not absolute,” the judge declared. “They cannot be stretched to legitimise structures unknown to our constitution. To allow this shadow cabinet would be to invite disorder into a fragile democracy.”
For the DSS, it was vindication. For Utomi, it was a public rebuke that turned his civil society initiative into a cautionary tale.
Democracy or Clampdown? The Ripple Effect
The verdict has ignited fierce debate across Nigeria’s political and civic circles.
- Civil rights activists warn the judgment could be weaponised to stifle dissent and silence critics of government.
- Legal scholars counter that in a presidential system, shadow cabinets are fundamentally alien, unlike parliamentary systems where they are a formal tradition.
- Opposition figures say the ruling shrinks an already narrow civic space, making accountability nearly impossible outside partisan politics.
The clash reveals a deeper national dilemma: how to balance civil liberties with state security in a nation where both are fragile.
Global Parallels and Local Lessons
Shadow governments exist in democracies like the UK and Canada as part of parliamentary checks and balances. But in Nigeria, a presidential democracy, such structures have no legal footing. Analysts argue Utomi overreached by importing an alien model without adaptation.
Yet critics note that the blanket rejection sends a troubling signal: that any parallel civic oversight, even symbolic, may now be painted as subversion. In a country where NGOs, advocacy groups, and civic campaigns already face scrutiny, the ruling could embolden agencies to brand them unlawful.
Political Implications for 2027
With the 2027 elections already casting a shadow, the verdict carries weight beyond Utomi.
- It underlines the judiciary’s alignment with the state on matters of “order and security.”
- It clips the wings of opposition figures seeking alternative avenues to critique Tinubu’s government.
- It could chill activism at a moment when citizens demand accountability over reforms, subsidy removal, and economic hardship.
For Utomi, the setback is both legal and reputational. For Nigeria, it sharpens the line between dissent and disorder — a line many argue is being drawn too narrowly.
Impact Snapshot
- Civil Society: Risk of crackdown on alternative platforms.
- Politics: PDP, Labour Party, and others lose a symbolic rallying idea.
- Public Trust: Raises questions about state tolerance for criticism.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
