The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, and the party have sued the Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, over the alleged imposition of a N200 million campaign fee on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
The suit, shared with our correspondent on Sunday, was marked HU/214/2026 and filed before the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17, by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, alongside Ire Egert-Olusesi, Ridwan Azeez, Oluwabusola Oluwaniyi and Joseph Lukman of Musibau Adetunbi, SAN & Co., Ibadan.
Makinde and the APM joined the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the State House of Assembly as defendants, asking the court to declare the N200 million campaign fee unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws.
Ironically, however, the lawsuit has raised questions about a similar policy in Oyo State, where the Makinde administration has imposed a N50 million fee on presidential candidates for campaign advertising.
The Oyo State Signage and Advertisement Agency reportedly pegged the permit fee for presidential candidates seeking to erect campaign billboards and other outdoor advertisements in the state at N50 million. The policy has therefore sparked questions about the apparent contradiction between Makinde challenging a N200 million campaign fee in Abia while his administration imposes a N50 million charge on presidential campaigns in Oyo.
While Makinde and the APM argue that the Abia fee could undermine a level playing field for candidates and restrict political visibility, critics may also ask whether the same principle should apply to Oyo State and whether the N50 million charge imposed by his administration is consistent with the argument being advanced before the Abia State High Court.
In the suit, Makinde and the APM are seeking, among other reliefs, an order setting aside regulations made by ABSAA concerning political campaigns, including the N200 million fee imposed on presidential candidates or any other amount.
They also asked the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the fee and from “removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing” the placement of their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the fee inconsistent with the Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other federal legislation, and therefore null and void ab initio.
They also sought a declaration that the fee contravenes Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, which bars the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate.
Makinde and the APM argued that INEC was exclusively empowered to make rules and regulations concerning political campaigns, relying on Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution and Section 99(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.
They contended that fixing the N200 million fee amounted to using the state signage agency to shut out non-incumbent candidates from public visibility, and to the specific advantage of a ruling party better able to absorb such costs.
The suit also leans on Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which caps total campaign expenditure for a presidential election at N10 billion nationwide.
The claimants argued that if similar charges were replicated across other states, cumulative billboard fees alone could consume more than 80 per cent of that ceiling, before accounting for travel, media buys, venue rental, security and payments to agents across more than 176,974 polling units nationwide.
They maintained that while outdoor signage regulation falls within states’ residual powers, that power could not be exercised to frustrate or override federal electoral legislation, citing Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution on the primacy of validly enacted federal law.
The supporting affidavit was deposed to by one Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, described as APM’s National Welfare Officer.
She stated that the claimants became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour that covers all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
The plaintiffs said that unless the court intervened, they would suffer irreparable harm to their constitutional right to seek public office, and the principle of a level playing field for all contestants would be undermined.
