Temitayo Olumofe
On a humid morning in late May, Nigerians woke up to heated debates and headlines about a “shadow government” and a legal showdown between Professor Pat Utomi, a respected political economist, and the country’s top security agency, the Department of State Services (DSS). For many, the story felt like a scene from a political drama. Still, for Utomi and his supporters, it was a call for Nigeria’s democracy to grow up and embrace open debate, not stifle it.
On May 5, 2025, Professor Pat Utomi announced the formation of the “Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government,” a group made up of opposition figures and policy experts. The goal, he said, was simple: to monitor government actions, offer alternative policies, and encourage open dialogue about Nigeria’s future. “This is not an attempt to overthrow or undermine the government but to foster constructive criticism and accountability,” Utomi explained during the fourth edition of the Topaz Lecture Series, hosted by the University of Lagos Mass Communication Class of 1988 Alumni Association.
Utomi emphasized that shadow cabinets are a recognized democratic practice worldwide. “Nigeria must embrace institutions that encourage performance and transparency,” he argued, insisting that the shadow government is a civic platform designed to stimulate issue-based governance, not a rebellious or parallel state structure.
He revealed that this idea was not new to him. “I pitched the idea to former President Umaru Yar’Adua in 2008 and have maintained the cabinet, mainly at my own expense, since then,” Utomi said. The shadow cabinet, he explained, is about values, not titles: “Our commitment is not to nomenclature, but to values. Nigeria urgently needs a space where policies are debated and where the government is constructively challenged to do better.”
Utomi’s announcement was met with mixed reactions. Supporters saw it as a breath of fresh air in Nigeria’s often stagnant political space—a way to break the cycle of dysfunction and lack of ideological leadership. Critics, however, worried it might stir unrest or encourage separatist movements.
Utomi traced the roots of his shadow cabinet idea to a 2012 lecture that helped inspire the formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC). He lamented, however, that the party had since shifted from its founding vision to a focus on power for its own sake. He warned that if Nigeria’s political class continued to ignore the need for reform, the country could face a crisis similar to Somalia’s collapse.
The situation escalated on May 15, 2025, when the DSS filed a lawsuit against Utomi at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The security agency argued that the shadow government was unconstitutional and a threat to national security and democratic governance. The DSS, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Akinlolu Kehinde, claimed Utomi’s actions could “incite political unrest, increase intergroup tensions, and encourage separatist groups to form similar unrecognized structures.”
In court documents, the DSS stated, “The planned shadow cabinet is an aberration and a direct threat to the democratically elected government and constitutional order.” The agency asked the court to declare the shadow government illegal and to issue a perpetual injunction restraining Utomi and his associates from further activities related to the shadow government.
The DSS cited sections of the Nigerian Constitution that require governance to be carried out only by constitutional provisions, arguing that any alternative authority structure is null and void. The agency also claimed that Utomi’s statements and the inauguration of a shadow cabinet could weaken public trust in democratic institutions and fuel public disaffection.
Utomi was quick to respond, describing the DSS lawsuit as “an act of cowardice.” He used his social media platform to condemn what he saw as attempts to stifle free speech and bully those with opposing views. “To stifle freedom of expression and bully civilized expression of difference is an act of cowardice and treachery to the constitution of Nigeria,” he wrote.
He urged Nigerians to focus on upholding the constitution, particularly regarding party defections, rather than chasing “shadows.” Utomi also thanked his supporters for planning to mobilize 500 lawyers to defend him against the DSS and criticized those in power for prioritizing personal gain over the country’s future.
Utomi’s supporters compared the shadow cabinet to the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), which President Bola Tinubu himself was part of in the 1990s when it formed a government in exile to challenge military rule. “Our commitment is not to nomenclature, but to values,” Utomi insisted, reinforcing his belief that Nigeria needs a space for policy debate and constructive challenge.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has set June 25, 2025, as the date to hear the DSS suit against Utomi. The legal battle is expected to test not only the limits of Nigeria’s constitutional order but also the willingness of its leaders to tolerate dissent and alternative viewpoints.
During the Topaz Lecture Series, Utomi fielded questions about the legality of using the term “shadow cabinet.” He stated that if the court ruled against him, the group would simply adopt a different name, emphasizing that the real issue was about values and accountability, not labels.
The controversy has sparked a broader debate in Nigeria about the role of opposition, the importance of deliberation, and the dangers of anti-intellectualism and elite complacency. Utomi warned that without reform, Nigeria risked sliding into a deeper crisis.
For many Nigerians, the case is about more than just one man or one group. It is about whether the country’s democracy can mature enough to allow for constructive criticism, policy alternatives, and open dialogue. As Utomi put it, “Shadow cabinets are a recognised democratic practice around the world, and Nigeria must embrace institutions that encourage performance and transparency.”
Pat Utomi’s Shadow Government Conundrum: Promise or Pitfall
Temitayo Olumofe
On a humid morning in late May, Nigerians woke up to heated debates and headlines about a “shadow government” and a legal showdown between Professor Pat Utomi, a respected political economist, and the country’s top security agency, the Department of State Services (DSS). For many, the story felt like a scene from a political drama. Still, for Utomi and his supporters, it was a call for Nigeria’s democracy to grow up and embrace open debate, not stifle it.
On May 5, 2025, Professor Pat Utomi announced the formation of the “Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government,” a group made up of opposition figures and policy experts. The goal, he said, was simple: to monitor government actions, offer alternative policies, and encourage open dialogue about Nigeria’s future. “This is not an attempt to overthrow or undermine the government but to foster constructive criticism and accountability,” Utomi explained during the fourth edition of the Topaz Lecture Series, hosted by the University of Lagos Mass Communication Class of 1988 Alumni Association.
Utomi emphasized that shadow cabinets are a recognized democratic practice worldwide. “Nigeria must embrace institutions that encourage performance and transparency,” he argued, insisting that the shadow government is a civic platform designed to stimulate issue-based governance, not a rebellious or parallel state structure.
He revealed that this idea was not new to him. “I pitched the idea to former President Umaru Yar’Adua in 2008 and have maintained the cabinet, mainly at my own expense, since then,” Utomi said. The shadow cabinet, he explained, is about values, not titles: “Our commitment is not to nomenclature, but to values. Nigeria urgently needs a space where policies are debated and where the government is constructively challenged to do better.”
Utomi’s announcement was met with mixed reactions. Supporters saw it as a breath of fresh air in Nigeria’s often stagnant political space—a way to break the cycle of dysfunction and lack of ideological leadership. Critics, however, worried it might stir unrest or encourage separatist movements.
Utomi traced the roots of his shadow cabinet idea to a 2012 lecture that helped inspire the formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC). He lamented, however, that the party had since shifted from its founding vision to a focus on power for its own sake. He warned that if Nigeria’s political class continued to ignore the need for reform, the country could face a crisis similar to Somalia’s collapse.
The situation escalated on May 15, 2025, when the DSS filed a lawsuit against Utomi at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The security agency argued that the shadow government was unconstitutional and a threat to national security and democratic governance. The DSS, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Akinlolu Kehinde, claimed Utomi’s actions could “incite political unrest, increase intergroup tensions, and encourage separatist groups to form similar unrecognized structures.”
In court documents, the DSS stated, “The planned shadow cabinet is an aberration and a direct threat to the democratically elected government and constitutional order.” The agency asked the court to declare the shadow government illegal and to issue a perpetual injunction restraining Utomi and his associates from further activities related to the shadow government.
The DSS cited sections of the Nigerian Constitution that require governance to be carried out only by constitutional provisions, arguing that any alternative authority structure is null and void. The agency also claimed that Utomi’s statements and the inauguration of a shadow cabinet could weaken public trust in democratic institutions and fuel public disaffection.
Utomi was quick to respond, describing the DSS lawsuit as “an act of cowardice.” He used his social media platform to condemn what he saw as attempts to stifle free speech and bully those with opposing views. “To stifle freedom of expression and bully civilized expression of difference is an act of cowardice and treachery to the constitution of Nigeria,” he wrote.
He urged Nigerians to focus on upholding the constitution, particularly regarding party defections, rather than chasing “shadows.” Utomi also thanked his supporters for planning to mobilize 500 lawyers to defend him against the DSS and criticized those in power for prioritizing personal gain over the country’s future.
Utomi’s supporters compared the shadow cabinet to the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), which President Bola Tinubu himself was part of in the 1990s when it formed a government in exile to challenge military rule. “Our commitment is not to nomenclature, but to values,” Utomi insisted, reinforcing his belief that Nigeria needs a space for policy debate and constructive challenge.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has set June 25, 2025, as the date to hear the DSS suit against Utomi. The legal battle is expected to test not only the limits of Nigeria’s constitutional order but also the willingness of its leaders to tolerate dissent and alternative viewpoints.
During the Topaz Lecture Series, Utomi fielded questions about the legality of using the term “shadow cabinet.” He stated that if the court ruled against him, the group would simply adopt a different name, emphasizing that the real issue was about values and accountability, not labels.
The controversy has sparked a broader debate in Nigeria about the role of opposition, the importance of deliberation, and the dangers of anti-intellectualism and elite complacency. Utomi warned that without reform, Nigeria risked sliding into a deeper crisis.
For many Nigerians, the case is about more than just one man or one group. It is about whether the country’s democracy can mature enough to allow for constructive criticism, policy alternatives, and open dialogue. As Utomi put it, “Shadow cabinets are a recognised democratic practice around the world, and Nigeria must embrace institutions that encourage performance and transparency.”
True to Utomi’s position, in the United Kingdom – the origin of the concept – the opposition party forms a Shadow Cabinet, with members shadowing each government minister. The practice is also common in Australia where opposition appoints shadow ministers to scrutinize and challenge the government. In Canada, Shadow ministers (called critics) are part of the opposition and focus on specific portfolios. New Zealand has a formal Shadow Cabinet as part of its parliamentary practice. In India, while not constitutionally required, the concept is increasingly adopted by major opposition parties. South Africa uses a shadow cabinet system within its multi-party parliamentary structure while in Ireland, opposition parties form spokespeople teams similar to shadow cabinets.
While it remains unclear if introducing such a concept in Nigeria amounts to a breach of the law, many have argued that there is no specific item in the constitution that criminalises the concept just as others maintain that it amounts to running a parallel government since the Nigerian constitution did not give room for it.
As Nigerians await the court’s decision, the debate over Utomi’s shadow government has already forced the country to confront difficult questions about democracy, dissent, and the future of governance. Whether or not the shadow cabinet survives in its current form, the conversation it has sparked may prove to be its most lasting legacy.
As Nigerians await the court’s decision, the debate over Utomi’s shadow government has already forced the country to confront difficult questions about democracy, dissent, and the future of governance. Whether or not the shadow cabinet survives in its current form, the conversation it has sparked may prove to be its most lasting legacy.
