Oyo State Governor and presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Seyi Makinde, and his party have instituted a legal action against the Abia State Government over an alleged ₦200 million campaign advertising fee for presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed at the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17, 2026, through the plaintiffs’ counsel, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN.
Named as defendants are Abia State Governor Alex Otti, the State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ASAA) and the Abia State House of Assembly.
Makinde and the APM are challenging the legality of the alleged fee, arguing that it conflicts with provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026.
The plaintiffs said they became aware of the fee while preparing to commence their nationwide campaign and argued that similar charges across states could make compliance with the statutory campaign expenditure limits difficult.
Among the reliefs being sought, the plaintiffs want the court to set aside the regulations made by ASAA relating to political campaign advertising, including the alleged ₦200 million fee.
They are also seeking an injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the fee or removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements in Abia State.
The plaintiffs further asked the court to declare the alleged fee inconsistent with relevant provisions of the Constitution and Electoral Act 2026, including provisions relating to campaign regulation, expenditure limits and the use of state regulatory structures during elections.
They argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has constitutional and statutory responsibilities relating to rules and regulations governing political campaigns for elections.
The APM and Makinde also contend that Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 restricts the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies in a manner that could advantage or disadvantage a political party or candidate.
They further argued that while states have regulatory responsibilities over outdoor advertising, such powers should not, in their view, be exercised in a manner that conflicts with federal electoral legislation.
The plaintiffs have presented six questions for determination and are seeking eight principal reliefs from the court.
The case now places the legality of the disputed campaign advertising fee before the Abia State High Court for judicial determination.
By Enitan Mudashiru | MUK TV News
