Makinde, APM sue Abia gov over N200m campaign fee

n n

The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, and the party have sued the Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, over the alleged imposition of a N200 million campaign fee on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.

n

The suit, shared with our correspondent on Sunday, was marked HU/214/2026 and filed before the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17, by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, alongside Ire Egert-Olusesi, Ridwan Azeez, Oluwabusola Oluwaniyi and Joseph Lukman of Musibau Adetunbi, SAN & Co., Ibadan.

n

They joined the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the State House of Assembly as defendants, and asked that all four be served within 30 days.

n

Makinde and the APM argued that the fee imposed by the signage agency was unconstitutional and violated provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws.

n

They are seeking, among other reliefs, an order setting aside regulations made by ABSAA concerning political campaigns, including the N200m fee imposed on presidential candidates or any other amount.

n

They also asked the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the fee and from “removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing” the placement of their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.

n

The plaintiffs asked 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.

n

They also sought a declaration that the fee contravenes Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, which bars the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate.

n

Makinde and the APM argued that INEC was 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.

n

They contended that fixing the N200m fee amounted to using the state signage agency to shut out non-incumbent candidates from public visibility, and to the specific advantage of a ruling party better able to absorb such costs.

n

The suit also leans on Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which caps total campaign expenditure for a presidential election at N10bn nationwide.

n

The claimants argued that if similar charges were replicated across other states, cumulative billboard fees alone could consume more than 80 per cent of that ceiling, before accounting for travel, media buys, venue rental, security and payments to agents across more than 176,974 polling units nationwide.

n

They maintained that while outdoor signage regulation falls within states’ residual powers, that power could not be exercised to frustrate or override federal electoral legislation, citing Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution on the primacy of validly enacted federal law.

n

The supporting affidavit was deposed to by one Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, described as APM’s National Welfare Officer.

n

She stated that the claimants became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour that covers all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

n

The plaintiffs said that unless the court intervened, they would suffer irreparable harm to their constitutional right to seek public office, and the principle of a level playing field for all contestants would be undermined.

n n