Presidential Poll: Makinde, APM drag Gov Otti to court over N200m campaign fee

n n

Gov Seyi Makinde.

n

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

n

ABUJA – The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and its presidential candidate, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, have instituted a legal action against Governor Alex Otti of Abia State over the alleged unlawful imposition of a N200 million mandatory campaign fee.

n

According to the plaintiffs, the Abia State governor mandated that any presidential candidate wishing to display campaign materials in any part of the state must pay the stipulated fee.

n

Also cited as defendants in the suit, marked HC/214/2026 and filed before the High Court of Abia State, are the state’s Attorney General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ASAA), and the state House of Assembly.

n

The plaintiffs, through their team of lawyers led by Mr. Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), faulted the fee, insisting it violates the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Electoral Act 2026, and other relevant laws.

n

The litigants said they learned of the fee while preparing to commence their nationwide campaign.

n

They argued that if all the states were to impose such a huge fee, it would be impossible for any presidential candidate to abide by the campaign funding limit prescribed by the Electoral Act 2026.

n

Consequently, the plaintiffs raised six questions for the court’s determination and sought eight principal reliefs, among them an order setting aside the regulations made by the ASAA in respect of political campaigns, especially the imposition of a N200m campaign fee, or any amount, on presidential candidates.

n

They also want an order of injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the campaign or signage fee and from “removing, defacing, destroying and obstructing the placement of the plaintiffs’ political campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.”

n

Makinde and the APM are seeking a declaration that, by the combined operation of Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, Sections 92 and 99 of the Electoral Act 2026, and Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, the N200,000,000 campaign fee schedule imposed by the ASAA is inconsistent with federal legislation, unconstitutional, and null and void ab initio.

n

They also want a declaration that, under Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, the ASAA’s imposition of N200m as a campaign fee for presidential candidates to display campaign materials in Abia State’s advertising space contravenes the Act.

n

The Act prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate at an election, and the fee also contravenes the principle of a level playing field for all contestants and political parties.

n

Justifying the suit, the plaintiffs stated 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 exclusively vested with the power to make rules and regulations on political campaigns for candidates and political parties for the purpose of elections.

n

They argued 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 or political party.

n

They added that by publicly fixing an exorbitant fee, the defendants are using the ASAA as a state apparatus to constructively exclude non-incumbent candidates from public visibility.

n

The plaintiffs noted that, under Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, total expenditure for a presidential election campaign is strictly capped at N10 billion nationwide.

n

They argued that if other states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) were to impose such humongous amounts, the fees would constitute over 80 percent of the statutory limit on billboards alone, making compliance with federal campaign spending limits a practical impossibility.

n

They argued further that while Section 99 of the Electoral Act 2026 guarantees political candidates the unhindered right to campaign publicly once the statutory period opens, the defendants’ imposition of the exorbitant N200 million campaign fee contravenes the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026.

n

The plaintiffs also 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.

n

By virtue of Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, they said, any state law, public directive, or administrative regulation that is inconsistent with an Act of the National Assembly, in this case the Electoral Act 2026, is null, void, and of no legal effect to the extent of its inconsistency.

n

It was the plaintiffs’ position that unless the court swiftly intervenes to declare the fee illegal and restrain the defendants, the APM’s presidential candidate will suffer irreparable harm to his constitutional right to seek public office.

n

Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the matter.

n n