Court has rejected DSS bid to stop Pat Utomi’s shadow government activities and rallies.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday declined a request by the Department of State Services (DSS) to issue an interim order restraining renowned political economist and former presidential candidate, Professor Pat Utomi, and his associates from holding rallies or protests over alleged bad governance in Nigeria.
Recall that the DSS had dragged Utomi before the court over his plans to form a so-called “shadow government,” which the agency claims poses a threat to national security and constitutional order.
ALSO: Kwara, Oyo, Kano Governors Declare Public Holidays To Mark Islamic New Year
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, the DSS is seeking a declaration that the initiative is unlawful and destabilizing. The agency also filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction to bar Utomi and members of his group from organizing public demonstrations or granting media interviews related to the matter.
DSS counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), told the court that intelligence reports showed that Utomi had finalized plans to carry out public activities that could undermine the legal process. He urged the court to address the injunction immediately to forestall actions that could “compromise national peace.”
However, Utomi’s counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), opposed the motion, describing it as premature and intertwined with the main reliefs being sought in the substantive suit. He argued that ruling on the injunction ahead of full arguments would prejudice the defence.
Ozekhome commended the court for adopting a thoughtful approach by inviting constitutional law experts as amici curiae (friends of the court) to guide its judgment on the weighty legal issues raised by the case.
Justice James Omotosho, who is presiding over the matter, revealed that the court had invited six eminent legal scholars and Senior Advocates of Nigeria from across the geopolitical zones to submit non-binding expert opinions.
The amici curiae include:
Prof. Ademola Popoola, Professor of International Law at Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife
Prof. Uchefula Chukwumaeze, Vice Chancellor of Imo State University
Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN)
Mr. Joe Gadzama (SAN)
Prof. Dakas Dakas (SAN), former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Jos
Mrs. Miannaya Essien (SAN)
Mr. Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), immediate past President of the Nigerian Bar Association
The judge explained that their submissions would inform the court’s deliberations and be made available to both parties ahead of final judgment.
Justice Omotosho ruled that rather than hear the interlocutory motion separately, the court would proceed with an accelerated hearing of the main suit in tandem with a preliminary objection filed by Utomi. Both will be considered simultaneously on the next adjourned date.
In a stern caution, the judge warned both parties against taking any steps that might undermine the court’s authority or prejudice the outcome.
“It is trite law that once a suit is filed and served, no party should take any step that would render the court’s decision nugatory. Any such action may be declared void,” he stated.
The case was adjourned to July 10, 2025, for hearing.
Meanwhile, in his preliminary objection, Utomi through Ozekhome asked the court to dismiss the DSS suit outright for lack of jurisdiction.
He argued that the DSS lacks the statutory authority under the National Security Agencies Act to interfere in matters related to civic expression, peaceful protest, or political association, including shadow cabinet formations, which are protected under Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution.
Utomi described the DSS’s case as speculative and hypothetical, asserting that it was based on assumptions rather than established facts. In an affidavit personally deposed, he maintained that the agency was seeking preemptive orders founded on “mere suspicion,” which he argued would set a dangerous precedent for democratic freedoms.
He urged the court to strike out or dismiss the suit in its entirety as an abuse of judicial process.
