Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) have filed a lawsuit against the Abia State Government over a N200 million fee imposed on presidential candidates who wish to display campaign materials in the state. The plaintiffs argue that this fee is excessive and a backdoor attempt to limit the visibility of non-incumbent candidates. They claim it contradicts the Electoral Act 2026, which allows a candidate to spend a maximum of N10 billion nationwide on their campaign.
The lawsuit, filed at the Abia State High Court, specifically targets Governor Alex Otti, the state Attorney General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ASAA), and the state House of Assembly. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), will represent them in the case. According to the plaintiffs, they were informed of the fee while preparing to launch their nationwide campaign. They argue that if every state and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) charged a similar fee, billboard charges alone would account for over 80% of the total allowed campaign expenditure.
The plaintiffs have raised six questions for determination and are seeking eight reliefs. One of their key requests is an order setting aside ASAA's regulations on political campaigns, including the N200 million fee. They also seek an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the fee and obstructing their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements in Abia. Furthermore, they are asking for a declaration that the N200 million schedule is unconstitutional and void.
The plaintiffs contend that the Constitution and the Electoral Act grant the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) exclusive powers to make rules and regulations on campaigns. They argue that by imposing an exorbitant fee, the defendants are using ASAA to exclude non-incumbent candidates from public visibility, contrary to the principles of a level playing field. The plaintiffs also claim that the fee undermines Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, which prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to advantage or disadvantage any party or candidate.
Section 99 of the Electoral Act guarantees candidates an unhindered right to campaign publicly once the statutory period opens. The plaintiffs argue that the N200 million fee violates this right. They acknowledge that outdoor signage falls under the Residual List and is a state matter but insist that states cannot exercise this power in a prohibitive or discriminatory manner that frustrates or overrides an Act of the National Assembly on campaigns.
The plaintiffs emphasized the supremacy of federal law, citing Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, which state that any state law, directive, or regulation inconsistent with the Electoral Act is void to the extent of that inconsistency. They warned that unless the court intervenes swiftly, Makinde will suffer irreparable harm to his constitutional right to seek public office, and the principle of a level playing field will be compromised.
The case has significant implications for the upcoming presidential election, particularly regarding campaign regulations and the powers of state governments. The court's decision will determine whether the Abia State Government's N200 million fee is constitutional and whether it can be enforced. The plaintiffs' arguments center on the potential exclusion of non-incumbent candidates from public visibility and the violation of their right to campaign freely.
Key points
- The plaintiffs argue that the N200 million fee is a backdoor attempt to limit the visibility of non-incumbent candidates.
- The lawsuit challenges the Abia State Government's authority to impose a fee that may contradict the Electoral Act 2026.
- The court's decision will have implications for the upcoming presidential election, particularly regarding campaign regulations and state government powers.
