The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has invited legal experts to give opinions on the suit filed by the Department of State Services seeking to stop the ‘shadow government’ formed by political economist, Prof Pat Utomi and some associates
James Omotoshom, the presiding judge, announced that the court had invited six legal experts – one from each of Nigeria’s geopolitical zones– to serve as amici curiae (friends of the court), citing the national importance of the case.
“And I have invited amicus curiae from each political zone to represent each zone because this issue has national interest, that is, a national outlook as regarding the nature of the suit,” the judge said.
“I deemed it fit to invite vice-chancellor of university, senior advocates of Nigeria (SAN), and professors of law of repute.”
Those invited include Ademola Popoola, a professor of international law and jurisprudence from Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU); Uchefula Chukwumaeze, vice-chancellor of Imo State University; and Joseph Daudu, a former NBA president.
Others are Joe Gadzama; Dakas Dakas, former dean of faculty of law, University of Jos; Miannaya Essien; and Yakubu Maikyau, immediate past president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
Omotosho said the opinions of the amici curiae would be shared with both parties before the case is heard and decided. The matter was adjourned to July 10 for hearing.
Justice Omotosho had earlier cautioned parties against taking any steps that could undermine the case.
The judge issued the warning on Wednesday following a complaint by Akinlolu Kehinde, DSS counsel, who alleged that Utomi was engaging in actions that could compromise the subject of the suit.
The DSS had filed the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, asking the court to declare that Utomi’s recent announcement of a “shadow government” violates the Nigerian Constitution.
On May 5, Utomi unveiled the initiative launched under the “Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government” as a platform to provide credible opposition to President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
In addition to the substantive case, the DSS also filed a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain Utomi and his associates from holding rallies or demonstrations relating to the matter.
The secret police said it received intelligence indicating that the defendant had concluded plans for protests, rallies, and media engagements.
Although the court did not hear the DSS’s application for the injunction on Wednesday, Omotosho emphasised the importance of maintaining the status quo.
“I think it is trite law that when a process is served on the other party, you do not take action that will make the suit nugatory,” the judge said.
“I think the defence counsel too knows this, and any action taken will have consequences.
“I have made my intention known. No party should take any step that will make the suit nugatory. Any action taken will be nullified by this court.”
In a preliminary objection filed on June 24, Utomi asked the court to dismiss the DSS suit in its entirety, arguing that it lacked merit and legal standing.
He claimed that the DSS had not demonstrated a reasonable cause of action under the National Security Agencies Act and that the subject of the suit involving civic engagement, formation of a shadow cabinet, and public policy discourse falls outside the agency’s statutory duties as defined under section 2(3) of the Act.
Utomi contended that the DSS was attempting to criminalise constitutionally protected rights such as freedom of expression, association, and political participation — all of which are guaranteed under sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
