Oyo State Governor and Allied Peoples Movement presidential candidate, Seyi Makinde, alongside his party, has dragged Abia State Governor Alex Otti to court over an alleged N200 million campaign fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
The suit, marked HU/214/2026, was filed before the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17 by the plaintiffs’ legal team led by Musibau Adetunbi, SAN.
Makinde and the APM also joined the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the Abia State House of Assembly as defendants, asking that the parties be served within 30 days.
At the heart of the legal battle is the N200 million fee allegedly imposed by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency on presidential candidates for campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements.
Makinde and the APM argued that the fee was unconstitutional and inconsistent with provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws.
They are asking the court to set aside regulations made by the signage agency concerning political campaigns, including the N200 million fee or any other amount imposed on presidential candidates.
The plaintiffs are also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the fee or “removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing” their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements across Abia State.
They further want 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.
Makinde and the APM also argued that the fee contravenes Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, which prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate.
The plaintiffs contended that the Independent National Electoral Commission is 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 further argued that fixing the N200 million fee amounted to using the state signage agency to limit the public visibility of non-incumbent candidates while giving an advantage to a ruling party that could more easily absorb the cost.
The suit also cited Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which places the total campaign expenditure limit for a presidential election at N10 billion nationwide.
According to the claimants, if comparable charges were imposed across other states, billboard fees alone could consume more than 80 per cent of the spending ceiling, even before other campaign expenses such as travel, media, venue rentals, security and payments to agents are considered.
They maintained that although states have powers to regulate outdoor signage, such powers cannot be used to frustrate or override federal electoral legislation.
The supporting affidavit was deposed to by Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, identified as the APM’s National Welfare Officer.
She stated that the plaintiffs became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour covering all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
The plaintiffs argued that unless the court intervenes, they could suffer irreparable harm to their constitutional right to seek public office, while the principle of a level playing field for contestants could also be undermined.
