Why A Shadow Is Not A Threat To Government; And Matters Arising, By Collins Nweke

Nigerians woke up this morning yesterday were greeted with news of further developments in the audacious push by Professor Pat Utomi for a Big Tent Shadow Government. This situation follows moves by President Bola Tinubu. He aims to stop him by legal means and any other ways deemed necessary. Utomi addressed the media after a two-day retreat of the shadow government in Abuja. He listed the members of his shadow government. The members include Nana Kazaure who is responsible for Information, Riwang Pam is in charge of Security, Nike Omola oversees Women and Gender Development, and Peter Agada handles Infrastructure, Urban Development, and Housing. 

Those of us that only paid marginal attention to the news have been provided a reason to interrogate it further. In mature democracies, criticism is not sedition. Neither is accountability a rebellion. The controversy surrounding Professor Pat Utomi’s proposed “shadow cabinet” has triggered alarmist reactions from some quarters of government. But such panic is misplaced, unhelpful, and undemocratic. A shadow, after all, is not a threat. It is merely a reflection. And if governance is as solid as its leaders claim, then it should have no fear of reflection.

Professor Utomi’s initiative is, by all reasonable accounts, a commendable effort to fill Nigeria’s enduring accountability gap. His Shadow Government, when fully constituted, is envisaged to include experts, opposition figures, and civic leaders. It seeks to watch, scrutinize, and offer policy alternatives to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. It is not a parallel government. It does not wield state power. It is a civic, intellectual, and democratic instrument, akin to a watchdog NGO. You may even call it an academic think tank with sharper teeth.

The concept of a shadow cabinet has deep historical roots in the Westminster parliamentary tradition. There, it emerged as a structured way for opposition parties to offer checks and balances to the ruling government. In the United Kingdom, as far back as the 19th century, opposition leaders began assigning specific roles. These roles mirrored those of government ministers. This practice allowed them to scrutinize policies, propose alternatives, and show readiness to govern. Over time, this evolved into a formal institution, adopted by many democracies around the world, parliamentary or presidential in nature. It is deployed as a tool to deepen democratic practice. Today, shadow cabinets are not confined to opposition parties within legislatures. They also find expression in civil society, academia, and professional circles. They serve as platforms for grooming substitute leadership, generating innovative ideas, and ensuring governments stay accountable between election cycles. As such, they are essential to building an enduring and resilient democracy.

 See EDITORS NOTE below.

The government’s response yet has been disappointingly heavy-handed. Security agencies have accused Utomi of attempting to usurp constitutional authority. They warn of chaos, instability, and hidden agendas. Yet, at no point has this initiative suggested an unconstitutional seizure of power. It simply seeks to play a role that institutions like the National Assembly often fail to do: rigorous policy scrutiny.

The question before us is this: Should a government elected with the mandate of the people fear accountability? Should it fear being held to account by the people?

The answer is a resounding no.

In fact, a healthy democracy thrives on plural voices. Shadow cabinets are commonplace in parliamentary democracies. This is the case in the UK, Canada, Australia. Even in emerging democracies like Ghana and Kenya, shadow ministers have clear roles. They track their official counterparts. They challenge policies. They present alternatives. Though Nigeria operates a presidential system, the core function of a shadow cabinet, accountability and alternative thinking, remains profoundly relevant.

The objection that Nigeria’s constitution does not explicitly recognize a shadow cabinet misses the point entirely. The Nigerian Constitution provides important rights. Sections 39, 40, and 22 guarantee citizens the right to freedom of expression and association. They also ensure the right to hold the government accountable. Utomi’s shadow initiative falls squarely within these constitutional bounds. Attempting to shut it down through legal or security mechanisms would be not only undemocratic but also unlawful.

So, why panic?

The real threat is not the shadow cabinet. The real threat is a culture of intolerance towards dissent. The real danger lies in equating critical civic engagement with political subversion. If a government fears scrutiny, then it must ask itself: What is it hiding?

On the contrary, President Tinubu has every reason to welcome the initiative. Here’s why:

• It offers credible feedback. Governments can sometimes lose touch with realities on the ground. A competent shadow cabinet provides informed, constructive criticism, free of sycophancy.
• It raises the quality of public discourse. We get policy alternatives. We also hear expert perspectives and engage in open debate instead of sterile partisan bickering.
• It strengthens institutions. The shadow cabinet models transparency and accountability. This can help pressure under-performing public institutions to rise to their mandates.
• It prepares future leaders. Shadow ministers can become tomorrow’s effective public servants, well-trained, policy-savvy, and ethically grounded.

Most importantly, embracing such initiatives would show that President Tinubu is confident in his leadership. After all, great leaders don’t fear opposition; they engage it. They understand that dissent is not disloyalty. They recognize that accountability is not antagonism.

What Nigeria needs now, more than ever, is a culture of constructive governance. This is an ecosystem where policies are debated, decisions are questioned, and leaders are held accountable without fear of reprisal. The political elite must stop viewing every critical voice as an enemy of the state. Democracy is not a monologue. It is a conversation. And conversations require other voices. Professor Utomi’s shadow cabinet is a bold, necessary voice in that conversation. Rather than seek to silence it, the government should lean in, listen, and even engage. Doing so would not only demonstrate maturity but would deepen the democratic fabric of Nigeria.

In the end, a government secure in its legitimacy and performance has no reason to be afraid of its shadow.

About the Author

The author, Collins Nweke is a former Green Councillor at Ostend City Council, Belgium, where he served three consecutive terms until December 2024. He is a Fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Public Management of Nigeria and the Institute of Management Consultants. He is also a Distinguished Fellow of the International Association of Research Scholars and Administrators, serving on its Governing Council. He writes from Brussels, Belgium. X: @collinsnweke E: admin@collinsnweke.eu W: www.collinsnweke.eu

While there is a general meeting point around the principled place of alternative views in our presidential system of government, the legality and precedence setting nature of a ‘shadow government’ has created divisions around the form, and not the substantive intent or/and purpose amongst the public.

The legal school of thought represent that ‘in countries like the UK, a Shadow Cabinet is a formal and legal part of the political system, whose opposition party’s team of senior spokespeople have the responsibility of shadowing the government’s ministers, holding them accountable and presenting an alternative vision. They contend that “under our constitutional government however, a group may offer similar type services independently, but to attach the name ‘government’ to itself, whether secret or open, veers into the territory of an unofficial, parallel governing structure, and is generally not considered legal.” 

The accountability school of thought, as articulated by the author above, represent that it is no more than “an academic think tank with sharper teeth, given that it does not wield state power. It is a civic, intellectual, and democratic instrument, akin to a watchdog NGO.” 

The purist school of thought contends that “while the term, as represented here, can be inferred to reference an accountable mechanism through physical and online coalitions, it nonetheless would be better served if it avoids creating the impression of being an alternative government or seeking to pose significant threat to the legitimacy of the established government and the rule of law, through the use of the term ‘government’ in its engagements which naively acts to confuse the public and its message.”

We contend that Nigeria, as a sovereign, will benefit from a whole-of-society approach to governance where the citizens can freely form a coalition that seeks to hold its legitimate government accountable, by mirroring and presenting an alternative position, perspective and policies in a lawful manner, without inhibition or fear. If this is upheld, the country will be better off, as the nation’s history has shown that when we so engage, we are better prepared for leadership and succession of policy, people and programs. – ceo@proshare.co