A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has stopped renowned political economist, Professor Pat Utomi, and his associates from going ahead with their plan to establish a shadow government in Nigeria. The ruling, delivered on Monday, September 29, 2025, has sparked nationwide debate on the boundaries of opposition politics and the constitutional framework of Nigeria’s democracy.
Court Declares Shadow Government “Unconstitutional”
Justice James Omotosho, while delivering judgment in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, ruled that the establishment of a shadow government or shadow cabinet has no constitutional basis under Nigeria’s presidential system of governance. The case was instituted by the Department of State Services (DSS), which argued that the initiative amounted to an attempt to usurp executive powers and undermine the authority of the sitting government.
According to the judgment, Nigeria’s democracy thrives on multi-party competition and robust opposition, but all political activities must align with constitutional provisions. Justice Omotosho stressed that while opposition is critical to democracy, the idea of setting up a parallel government structure goes beyond the legal limits of political participation.
Background to the Case
The controversy began on May 5, 2025, when Professor Pat Utomi, under the platform of the Big Tent Coalition, announced the creation of a shadow government. Utomi described the initiative as a credible and organized opposition that would provide policy alternatives to the President Bola Tinubu-led administration.
On May 14, 2025, the DSS filed a suit against Utomi, warning that the move posed a threat to national security and democratic stability. The security agency insisted that Nigeria’s constitution makes no provision for such a system, unlike parliamentary democracies where shadow governments are a recognized feature.
Despite this, Utomi went ahead in July 2025 to unveil members of his shadow cabinet. According to him, the goal was to present Nigerians with “better policy direction” and hold the federal government accountable in real time.
Federal Government’s Position
The federal government, through Mohammed Idris, Minister of Information and National Orientation, strongly rejected the idea of a shadow government. Idris stated that Nigeria is not a parliamentary democracy but a presidential one, where the executive derives its authority directly from the people through elections.
He emphasized that while political opposition remains a cornerstone of democracy, it must not cross the line into creating parallel structures of governance, which could confuse citizens and destabilize the polity.
Implications of the Court Ruling
The ruling is expected to reshape how opposition groups in Nigeria operate. By clearly stating that shadow governments are unconstitutional, the judiciary has set a precedent that could discourage similar initiatives in the future.
Legal experts have noted that while the judgment may seem restrictive, it underscores the need for opposition parties to strengthen their structures within the boundaries of Nigeria’s political system rather than attempt to mimic parliamentary practices.
On the other hand, civil society organizations and democracy advocates argue that the ruling may weaken the ability of opposition figures to provide organized alternatives. They contend that policy-based opposition, such as the one Utomi proposed, could have enhanced accountability in governance.
What This Means for Nigeria’s Democracy
The judgment highlights a critical tension in Nigeria’s democracy: the balance between fostering vibrant opposition and maintaining constitutional order. For many Nigerians, the case raises questions about the role of intellectuals and political reformers in shaping governance without violating established laws.
Professor Utomi has not yet issued a formal response to the court’s decision. However, political analysts predict that the ruling could energize opposition parties ahead of the 2027 general elections, as they may now be compelled to strengthen traditional party structures instead of experimenting with unconventional models.
Conclusion
The decision of the Federal High Court to bar Pat Utomi’s shadow government initiative underscores the limits of political experimentation within Nigeria’s legal framework. While the ruling may silence one approach to opposition, it also challenges reformers to innovate within the confines of the constitution.
For now, Nigeria’s opposition movements will have to return to the drawing board and find fresh ways to provide credible alternatives to the current administration without running afoul of the law.
