The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja will on July 10, 2025, conduct an accelerated hearing of the substantive suit filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) against Professor Pat Utomi, alongside the preliminary objection filed by the defendant challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Justice James Omotosho, presiding over the matter, announced that the court will simultaneously consider both the main case and Utomi’s preliminary objection rather than hearing the DSS’s interlocutory injunction motion separately. The judge revealed that six eminent constitutional law experts and Senior Advocates of Nigeria from across the country’s geopolitical zones have been invited as amici curiae (friends of the court) to provide non-binding expert opinions that will guide the court’s deliberations on the weighty constitutional issues raised by the case.
The distinguished legal scholars invited to assist the court 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); and Mr. Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), immediate past President of the Nigerian Bar Association.
Justice Omotosho explained that their submissions would inform the court’s deliberations and be made available to both parties ahead of final judgment.
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. 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 to guide its judgment on the weighty legal issues raised by the case.
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.
In a stern caution, Justice Omotosho 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,” the judge stated.
On the adjourned date, the court will conduct an accelerated hearing of the main suit seeking declaration that shadow government formation is unlawful, consider Utomi’s preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, review submissions from the seven constitutional law experts invited as amici curiae, and hear full arguments from both parties on the substantive legal and constitutional issues raised.
The case has attracted significant attention due to its potential implications for democratic freedoms, civic expression, and the limits of state security agencies’ powers in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. The matter represents a critical test of the balance between national security concerns and constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association.
