The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and its presidential candidate, Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, have dragged Abia State Governor Alex Otti and other state authorities before the Abia State High Court over a ₦200 million campaign advertising fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display billboards and other campaign materials in the state.
The suit, filed before the Umuahia Judicial Division, challenges the legality of the fee on the grounds that it allegedly conflicts with the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026. Reports identify the case as Suit No. HC/214/2026, although one report gives the number as HU/214/2026.
The plaintiffs joined Otti, the Attorney-General of Abia State, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the Abia State House of Assembly as defendants.
They are represented by Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, and have placed six questions before the court for determination while seeking eight reliefs.
At the centre of the dispute is the campaign advertising fee schedule introduced by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency.
Under the schedule, presidential candidates are required to pay ₦200 million for campaign advertising permits, while governorship candidates are charged ₦150 million.
Senatorial candidates are to pay ₦100 million, House of Representatives candidates ₦50 million and candidates for the state House of Assembly ₦20 million.
Makinde and the APM are asking the court to determine whether Abia State authorities can lawfully impose such charges on candidates seeking to display political campaign materials.
They are also asking the court to set aside the regulations issued by the signage agency in relation to political campaigns, including the ₦200 million fee applicable to presidential candidates.
The plaintiffs further seek an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and persons acting on their behalf from enforcing the fee or removing, defacing, destroying or otherwise obstructing APM campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.
Their case relies, among other provisions, on Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, Sections 92 and 99 of the Electoral Act 2026, as well as Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs contend that the Constitution and federal electoral law give the Independent National Electoral Commission regulatory responsibilities over political campaigns and that a state regulatory body cannot exercise its outdoor-advertising powers in a way that allegedly obstructs or restricts electoral campaigns.
They further argue that Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory institutions in a manner that gives an advantage or disadvantage to a political party or candidate. This remains the plaintiffs’ legal argument for the court to determine.
Another major part of the challenge concerns campaign spending limits.
Section 92(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 fixes the maximum election expenses of a presidential candidate at ₦10 billion. The same section sets a ₦3 billion ceiling for governorship candidates, ₦500 million for senatorial candidates, ₦250 million for House of Representatives candidates and ₦100 million for state assembly candidates.
Makinde and the APM argue that requiring a presidential candidate to pay ₦200 million in one state merely for outdoor campaign advertising could place significant pressure on that statutory spending ceiling, particularly if comparable charges were imposed across the federation.
According to the plaintiffs, if every state and the Federal Capital Territory were to impose fees of a similar scale, campaign billboard charges alone could consume a substantial proportion of the expenditure permitted under federal law.
They therefore contend that while states may possess powers to regulate outdoor signage, such powers cannot, in their view, be exercised in a manner inconsistent with federal electoral legislation.
The plaintiffs also rely on Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, arguing that where a state law, regulation or administrative directive conflicts with valid federal legislation, the state measure is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
They are accordingly asking the court to declare the disputed ₦200 million fee unconstitutional, inconsistent with the Electoral Act and null and void.
The APM and Makinde further contend that failure to restrain enforcement of the regulation could interfere with their ability to conduct political campaigns and could affect what they describe as the statutory requirement for a level playing field among political parties and candidates.
The plaintiffs reportedly became aware of the fee while preparing to commence their nationwide presidential campaign and instituted the action before the campaign period advanced further.
The filing puts before the Abia State High Court a broader question about the extent to which a state’s power to regulate outdoor advertising can operate alongside federal legislation governing election campaigns, campaign expenditure and the use of state regulatory bodies.
The court has not yet ruled that the fee is unlawful, unconstitutional or invalid. Those remain claims advanced by Makinde and the APM for judicial determination.
As of the latest reports, no hearing date had been announced.
