Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo and the All Progressives Congress (APM) have filed a suit against the Abia State Government, Governor Alex Otti, and two others over the alleged unlawful imposition of a N200 million mandatory campaign fee. The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed before the High Court of Abia State through their lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN. The plaintiffs argue that the fee violates the Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026, and other relevant laws.
According to the plaintiffs, they learnt about the fee while preparing to commence their nationwide campaign. They contend 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. The plaintiffs have raised six questions for the court’s determination and are praying for eight reliefs, including an order setting aside the regulations made by Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ABSAA).
The plaintiffs, along with Governor Makinde, listed as defendants in the suit are the state’s Attorney General, State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ABSAA), and the state House of Assembly. They are seeking a declaration that the imposed campaign fee schedule of N200,000,000 by the ABSAA is inconsistent with federal legislation, unconstitutional, and null and void ab initio. The plaintiffs also want an order of injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the campaign or signage fee.
The plaintiffs argued 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 the candidates and political parties for elections. They contend that Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 strictly forbids using state apparatus, including administrative bodies, regulatory boards, and pricing mechanisms to the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate and/or political party.
The plaintiffs 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. They argued 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.
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 said, unless the court swiftly intervenes to declare the imposed fee illegal and restrain the defendants, the APM’s presidential candidate will suffer irreparable harm to his constitutional right to seek public office, and the democratic principle of a level playing field will be severely compromised. The court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the suit.
Key points
- The suit filed by Makinde and APM challenges the N200 million campaign fee imposed by Abia State Government.
- The plaintiffs argue that the fee is unconstitutional and violates the Electoral Act 2026.
- The court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the suit.
