The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, and the party have dragged the Abia State Government, Governor Alex Otti and other defendants before the state High Court over a N200 million fee imposed on presidential candidates for displaying campaign billboards and other outdoor political advertisements.
The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed by their counsel, Chief Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, before the High Court of Abia State.
Westernmirror.com.ng reports that the case is expected to put under judicial scrutiny the relationship between state-level regulation of outdoor advertising and the constitutional and statutory framework governing political campaigns ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Makinde and the APM are challenging the legality of the alleged fee, arguing that the charge is inconsistent with provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws governing elections and political campaigns.
The plaintiffs said they became aware of the fee while making preparations to commence their nationwide campaign ahead of the 2027 general elections.
According to them, the imposition of similar charges by states could create significant financial burdens for presidential candidates and potentially make it difficult for them to operate within the statutory campaign expenditure limit prescribed by law.
Listed as defendants in the suit, alongside Governor Otti, are the Attorney-General of Abia State, Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ASAA) and the Abia State House of Assembly.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to set aside regulations made by ASAA relating to political campaigns, particularly the alleged N200 million charge imposed on presidential candidates seeking to erect campaign billboards and other outdoor advertisements in the state.
They are also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or representatives from enforcing the disputed campaign and signage fee against the APM, its presidential candidate and their campaign organisation.
Similarly, the plaintiffs want the court to restrain the defendants from removing, defacing, destroying or otherwise obstructing the erection and display of their campaign billboards and other outdoor political advertisements within Abia State.
Challenge to legality of fee
Makinde and the APM are further seeking a declaration that the alleged N200 million campaign fee is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026 and is consequently null and void.
They argued that electoral laws prohibit the use of state apparatus, administrative bodies or regulatory agencies in a manner capable of conferring an advantage or disadvantage on a political party or candidate.
The plaintiffs contended that the disputed fee could undermine the principle of a level playing field for candidates participating in the 2027 presidential election.
They further argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is, by virtue of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, vested with powers relating to the regulation of political campaigns and electoral activities.
According to them, Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 prohibits the use of state apparatus, including administrative bodies and regulatory agencies, to the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate or political party.
The plaintiffs also drew the court’s attention to the statutory campaign expenditure limit of N10 billion for presidential candidates, arguing that imposing similar charges across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory could result in a substantial portion of the legally permitted campaign expenditure being consumed by regulatory and signage fees.
State signage powers challenged
The plaintiffs acknowledged that state governments possess powers to regulate outdoor advertising and signage within their respective jurisdictions.
However, they argued that such powers must be exercised within the limits of the law and should not be deployed in a manner that frustrates, conflicts with or overrides federal legislation regulating electoral campaigns.
They also relied on Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, contending that where a state law, directive or administrative regulation is inconsistent with an Act of the National Assembly, the conflicting provision is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
The APM and its presidential candidate therefore urged the court to intervene and determine the legality of the disputed charge before it affects their campaign activities in the state.
They claimed that allowing the fee to remain in force could adversely affect the APM presidential campaign and restrict the candidate’s ability to effectively campaign across Abia State.
The plaintiffs consequently asked the court to grant the declarations and injunctions sought and determine the extent of ASAA’s authority to impose charges on political parties and presidential candidates for campaign advertisements.