Prof. Pat Utomi has appealed to the Federal High Court in Abuja to strike out the suit filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) over his alleged plan to establish a shadow government in the country.
He recently made the application as the court begins hearing the suit on Wednesday.
Speaking via a preliminary objection filed by his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, Utomi urged Justice James Omotosho to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
According to him, the DSS’s suit revealed no justifiable cause of action within the contemplation of the enabling statute of the security outfit — the National Security Agencies Act, Cap N74, Laws of the Federation Nigeria, 2004.
The professor of Political Economy stated that the shadow cabinet formation does not fall under the functions of the State Security Service as provided under Section 2(3) of the National Security Agencies Act, so they have no right to sue.
He maintained that the lawsuit is an obvious abuse of the court process, and the clear lack of regard for the judiciary should not be tolerated.
“The reliefs sought by the plaintiff/respondent seek to criminalise constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, association, and political participation contrary to Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The suit amounts to an abuse of court process, is speculative, incompetent, inchoate and lacks any legal foundation,” he said.
Describing himself as a Nigerian University professor, entrepreneur, author, and politician, Utomi declared that the suit filed against him is speculative and premature at best.
He concluded by saying that it is in the interest of justice for the honourable court to pay attention to his preliminary objection before any further steps are taken regarding the case.
“That the suit amounts to an abuse of judicial process intended to muzzle the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression and political association.
That the claimant has not disclosed in the originating summons any concrete act or omission on the part of the defendant amounting to a breach of any known law or posing any clear and present danger to national security.
That the suit as presently constituted is an attempt to use civil proceedings to achieve objectives which, if any, ought to be pursued under established statutory processes with clear legal thresholds and procedural safeguards.
That the claimant has failed to demonstrate any justiciable grievance entitling it to the discretionary reliefs of this honourable court.
That it is in the interest of justice to have this honourable court determine the preliminary objection before any further steps are taken in the substantive matter.
That this honourable court will best promote the ends of justice and prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction,” he added.
