Truly, “Shadow Government,” or “Shadow Cabinet,” like the one led by Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa during Nigeria’s First Republic, is a vestige of the Westminster parliamentary model that Nigeria inherited from the British.

“The Official Shadow Cabinet”, or “His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition Cabinet”, is the recognised opposition party to the government in Britain. Made up mainly of frontbenchers of the opposition party in the House of Commons, it is responsible for scrutinising the work of the government.

In the parliamentary system, members of the shadow cabinet, who must be elected members of the House of Representatives, are expected to monitor and checkmate government ministers who have been assigned to run certain government ministries.

As members of a possible “Government-In-Waiting”, shadow ministers should be familiar with the workings of the ministries assigned to them, ahead of the next election that may return their political party as the next government.

That is one of the reasons that you witness the “Tom & Jerry” game of wits between British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and Opposition Leader, Kemi Badenoch, on the floor of the House of Commons, Britain’s lower chamber.

The opposition leader and the shadow ministers are expected to use a fine toothcomb to scrutinise the policies, programmes and projects of ministers of His Majesty’s Government, while the Prime Minister and his ministers are not expected to take offence for being criticised by their opposite numbers.

They will do the same anyway, if and whenever they are out of government and the shoe is on the other foot. It is probably one of the best ways that the British know to put a government on its toes and hold the ministers accountable to the electorate.

It doesn’t look as if the individuals that Prof Pat Utomi has nominated into the “Big Tent Coalition of Shadow Government” are members of the 10th House of Representatives, nor are they about to run for the house in any election. They shouldn’t pose an “insurrectional” threat to the government.

Utomi is probably thinking of a platform that can be used to help steer governance to better ways of providing existential political goods, like healthcare, and education; social goods, like law and order, ethics, transparency and integrity; and infrastructure, for Nigerian citizens.

He argued, for instance, that the policy choices of the government of President Tinubu Bola Tinubu had worsened poverty, driven multinational corporations out of Nigeria and intensified terrorism. He forgot to add the scourge of the high cost of foodstuffs.

The self-imposed assignment that Utomi and his cohort want to impose on themselves is not so much different from what the media, which is created by Section 22 of Nigeria’s constitution, has been undertaking even from the days of the nationalists who fought for Nigeria’s independence.

The government should, therefore, take his initiative in its stride and not fret over a legitimate aspect of the practice of democracy, whereby contrary opinions must be heard even if the opinion of the government that was voted into office will prevail.

Utomi’s criticism is not too different from the “pepper” that Obafemi Awolowo, First Republic’s leader of the opposition, or even General Olusegun Obasanjo, notable public letter writer, usually gave to military and civilian governments on behalf of the Nigerian people.

Nor is it different from the words of former Interim Chairman of All Progressives Congress, Bisi Akande, who said, the “failure of intelligence, political naivety and a disconnect between… Jonathan’s administration and… realities of the Nigerian situation”, caused Boko Haram insurgent to flourish under his watch.

APC’s one-man riot squad, “weapon of mass destruction” and National Publicity Secretary, Lai Muhammed, also counselled President Jonathan to tread softly as his intention to fire Central Bank of Nigeria’s Governor, Lamido Sanusi may end up destroying the CBN.

He warned President Jonathan against untidy handling of the sacking of Sanusi and pointed to the negative implications that may “include a loss of confidence in the economic management of the country, leading to uncertainty among domestic and foreign investors, as well as pressure on the (foreign) exchange rate”.

He added: “Foreign portfolio investors in government bonds and the stock market (may) make their exit, (with) the corresponding fall in the value of share prices… (as) a protracted standoff between the President and the CBN Governor will spell bad news for economic growth and incredible poverty.”

And, in the classic mode of a lethal member of a shadow government, Muhammed warned President Jonathan “against precipitating a crisis in the economy, (as he urged) all Nigerians to advise him against such an imminent tragedy”.

How are these submissions any different from the following savaging of British Prime Minister Starmer by Badenoch? “Starmer is a failure of a prime minister; when Labour (Party) negotiates, Britain loses; and his (first) budget means fewer jobs, lower growth and higher borrowing costs.”

Even in America, the bastion of presidential government, Senators and Congressmen of the opposition party, sometimes assume the posture of a shadow cabinet and render (sometimes) senseless and virulent criticisms of the President and his government.

America’s Democratic Party President, Barak Obama, got vicious shellacking when members of America’s Republican Party ripped apart his Affordable Act Care health plans that would not only take care of poor, vulnerable and economically dislocated Americans who cannot pay for their treatment, but care for all sick American citizens.

In 2010, Republican John Boehner of Ohio started the assault against Obamacare like this: “I think it is important for us to lay the groundwork before we begin to repeal this “monstrosity’”, even though the Republicans ended up not repealing the Act.

Maybe the government should have just regarded Utomi, Tinubu critic, Dele Farotimi, who has the portfolio of the ombudsman, and the rest of their “gang”, as mere political irritants, like the proverbial fly in the ointment.

Some are playing with the idea that Utomi’s “Big Tent” has two legitimate purposes: To check opposition politicians from further defecting to the ruling All Progressives Congress and to accommodate broad shades of political groups within one coalition, instead of having splinter groups that are doomed to lose elections.

Those who criticise politicians for defecting have the military intrusion into Nigeria’s political space to blame. The military’s unitary administrative model “socialised” state actors to think that opposition, in any form, is necessarily an enemy that must be hunted down at all costs.

The military’s imposition of a presidential system in Nigeria in 1979 fostered a winner-takes-all mindset on Nigerian politicians, who are generally sore losers that always want to be on the winning side: It explains why they defect from the opposition to ruling political parties, without qualms.

The suing of Utomi by gumshoes, the Department of State Services, because the “activities and statements made by the defendant and his associates are capable of misleading segments of the Nigerian public, weakening confidence in the legitimacy of the elected government, and fueling public disaffection” is unnecessary overkill.

And adding the name of Farotimi to the charge list leads one to wonder if the DSS is fighting a proxy war on behalf of a nonagenarian attorney. Or is it a rehash of Femi Osofisan’s dramatic comedy, “Who is Afraid of Solarin?”