The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, and his party have sued the Abia State Government, the governor, Alex Otti, over alleged imposition of a N200 million mandatory campaign fee on presidential candidates wishing to erect campaign posters of billboards in any party of the state.
According tthe suit marked HC/214/2026, filed before the state High Court f Abia State through their lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, the plaintiffs rejects the fee, contending that it’s against the Electoral Act and the Constitution.
The claimants, who said they learnt about the fee while preparing to commence their nationwide campaign, argued that if every state were to impose such a huge fee, it would be impossible for any presidential candidate to abide by the campaign funding limit imposed by the Electoral Act 2026.
Apart from the state governor, others listed in the suit as defendants in the suit are the state’s Attorney General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency, ABSAA, and the state House of Assembly.
The plaintiff raised six questions for the court’s determination and are praying for eight reliefs, including an order setting aside the regulations made by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ABSAA) in respect of political campaigns, including the imposition of a N200 million campaign fee on presidential candidates or any amount.
They also want an order of injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the campaign or signage fee and from “removing, defacing, destroying and obstructing the placement of the claimants’ political campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.”
The APM candidate and his party, are seeking a declaration that by the combined operation of Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, Sections 92 and 99 of the Electoral Act 2026, and Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, the imposed campaign fee schedule of N200,000,000 by the ABSAA is inconsistent with federal legislation, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio.
They also want a declaration that by the provision of Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, ABSAA’s imposition of N200 million as a campaign fee for presidential candidates in order to display campaign materials in Abia State’s advertising space is in contravention of the Electoral Act 2026, which prohibits the employment of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate at an election and also contravenes the principle of a level playing field for all contestants and political parties.
The plaintiff stated stated that by virtue of Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 9(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC is the body exclusively vested with the power to make rules and regulations in respect of political campaigns for candidates and political parties for the purpose of elections.
They argued that Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 strictly forbids the use of state apparatus, including administrative bodies, regulatory boards and pricing mechanisms, to the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate and/or political party, adding that by publicly fixing an exorbitant fee, the defendants are using ABSAA as a state apparatus to constructively exclude non-incumbent candidates from public visibility.
They noted noted that under Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, the total expenditure for a presidential election campaign is strictly capped at N10 billion nationwide, arguing that if other states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) were to impose such a humongous amount, such a fee would constitute over 80 percent of the allowed statutory limit on billboards alone, thereby making compliance with federal campaign spending limits a practical impossibility.
Argued that while Section 99 of the Electoral Act 2026 guarantees political candidates the unhindered right to campaign publicly once the statutory period opens, APM said the defendants’ imposition of the exorbitant campaign fee of N200 million contravenes the provisions of extant Electoral and the Constitution.
The plaintiffs further argued that while outdoor signage regulation falls under the Residual List under state law, state regulatory powers cannot be exercised in a prohibitive or discriminatory manner that frustrates, contradicts or overrides an Act of the National Assembly governing campaigns for elections.
They equally argued that by virtue of Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, any state law, public directive or administrative regulation that is inconsistent with an Act of the National Assembly, the Electoral Act 2026, is null, void and of no legal effect to the extent of its inconsistency.
The plaintiffs called for the court’s swift intervention, to stop the state government saying the APM’s presidential candidate will suffer irreparable harm to his constitutional right of seeking public office, because the action of the state government is capable of hampering the principle of allowing all candidates to have a level playing groung during the election.
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
