Makinde, APM Sue Governor Otti Over Imposition of N200m Campaign Fee In Abia
The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, and the party have instituted a legal action against the Abia State Government, Governor Alex Otti and other defendants over an alleged N200 million campaign fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed before the High Court of Abia State through their counsel, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN. The plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the fee, arguing that it is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws.
The plaintiffs said they became aware of the fee while preparing to commence their nationwide campaign, expressing concern that compliance with similar charges across the states could make it difficult for presidential candidates to operate within the campaign expenditure limit prescribed by law.
Listed as defendants alongside Governor Otti are the state Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ASAA) and the Abia State House of Assembly.
Makinde and the APM are asking the court to set aside regulations made by the ASAA concerning political campaigns, including the alleged N200 million campaign fee imposed on presidential candidates for the display of campaign materials.
They are also seeking an injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the campaign or signage fee, as well as from removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing the placement of their political campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.
The plaintiffs are further seeking a declaration that the N200 million fee is inconsistent with the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026, and is therefore null and void.
They argued that the provisions of the Electoral Act prohibit the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies in a manner that gives an advantage or disadvantage to any political party or candidate and that the fee undermines the principle of a level playing field in elections.
According to the plaintiffs, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is, by virtue of the relevant constitutional provisions and the Electoral Act, the body vested with powers to make rules and regulations governing political campaigns for elections.
They further argued that Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 prohibits the use of state apparatus, including administrative bodies and regulatory agencies, to the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate or political party.
The plaintiffs also pointed to the N10 billion statutory spending limit for presidential campaigns, arguing that if similar fees were imposed across states and the Federal Capital Territory, campaign-related charges could consume a significant portion of the permitted expenditure.
They maintained that while states have powers to regulate outdoor advertising and signage, such regulatory authority should not be exercised in a manner that, in their view, frustrates or overrides federal legislation governing electoral campaigns.
The plaintiffs also relied on Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that any state law, directive or administrative regulation inconsistent with an Act of the National Assembly is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
They urged the court to intervene, claiming that failure to suspend the disputed fee could adversely affect the APM presidential candidate’s ability to campaign and exercise his constitutional right to seek public office.
The suit seeks several declarations and orders against the defendants, with the court expected to determine the legality of the disputed campaign fee and the extent of the state agency’s powers under existing electoral and constitutional provisions.
Source: The Nation