The Federal High Court in Abuja has received a fresh application from the State Security Service (SSS) requesting an interlocutory injunction to restrain Professor Pat Utomi, the 2007 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), from making public statements or participating in rallies in connection with a pending legal case. The case involves Utomi’s proposed plan to establish a shadow government in Nigeria.
According to the application filed on Wednesday, the SSS disclosed that it had credible intelligence indicating that Utomi, who is currently abroad, intends to return to the country on June 6 and has planned a series of protests, roadshows, media engagements, and other public activities. These actions, the agency argues, are aimed at promoting the idea of a shadow cabinet, which is the subject of the pending lawsuit.
The security agency emphasized that such activities pose a grave threat to public peace, national safety, and the unity of Nigeria. It claimed that if not restrained, Utomi’s actions could lead to public disorder on a scale similar to the End SARS protests of 2020.
In a supporting affidavit, the SSS warned that the rallies and roadshows planned by Utomi are likely to attract large crowds and could potentially incite unrest, riots, or even acts of violence and destruction.
The application seeks, in particular, an order restraining Utomi—alongside his associates, agents, and anyone acting on his behalf—from organizing or participating in any form of public gathering, including rallies, lectures, media campaigns, or sensitization programs aimed at furthering the objectives of the proposed shadow government. This restraining order is requested to remain in effect until the substantive suit is heard and determined.
The SSS argued that, as the agency constitutionally mandated to ensure the country’s internal security and prevent threats to the authority of the Nigerian government and its institutions, it has a duty to act preemptively to safeguard national stability.
It also stated that prior to filing the main suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, Utomi had already made several public statements—both on social media and through traditional media—openly advocating for the creation of the shadow cabinet, despite knowing that the matter was already before the court.
The agency referenced an event held on May 26 at the University of Lagos—the fourth edition of the Topaz Lecture Series, themed “Shadow Government: A Distraction or Necessity?”—where Utomi delivered remarks allegedly designed to undermine the court process.
During the lecture, widely reported in both print and digital media, Utomi defended the concept of a shadow government and purportedly asserted that, even if the SSS succeeds in its lawsuit, he and his group would simply adopt another name.
The SSS further confirmed that Utomi had already been served with the originating processes in the suit and had entered legal appearance through his counsel, Professor Mike Ozekhome (SAN), as of May 20, 2025.
The agency insisted that unless the court intervenes by granting the interlocutory injunction, Utomi’s planned activities could compromise the integrity of the judicial process and pre-empt the outcome of the case—thus creating a situation of fait accompli.
In a statement following the filing of the application, the SSS’s lead counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), explained the rationale behind the agency’s legal move. He said the SSS deliberately chose to approach the court rather than unilaterally arrest any individual, out of respect for the rule of law and judicial due process.
Kehinde noted, “Our client, under its current leadership, is a law-abiding organization that has placed its confidence in the court to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of Professor Utomi’s shadow government. We believe that constitutional democracy and the rule of law must prevail in Nigeria.”
He added that the interlocutory application was necessary because, despite the pendency of the main suit and Utomi’s formal involvement in it, he has continued to make provocative public statements, thereby escalating the potential for unrest.
Kehinde urged the public and the media to keep watch over the proceedings, noting that the case is a civil suit aimed at preserving national peace and preventing any subversive actions that could amount to treason or insurrection against the democratically elected government.
He concluded by reaffirming the agency’s commitment to acting within legal boundaries:
“Let the court interpret the Constitution and determine whether any form of government, regardless of what it is called, can exist outside of the framework established by law.”
The application and supporting documents, being public records, are available at the registry of the Federal High Court.