Toyyibat Qasim
The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, alongside his party, have dragged Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, to court over an alleged N200m mandatory fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
Makinde and the APM are challenging the legality of the fee, contending that it violates provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026.
The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed at the Abia State High Court through their counsel, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN. Other defendants joined in the suit are the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency, ASAA, and the state House of Assembly.
The legal action comes as political parties and candidates prepare for the 2027 general elections and the commencement of nationwide campaign activities.
In their suit, Makinde and the APM argued that the N200m charge would create a serious financial burden for presidential candidates, particularly if similar charges were imposed by other states and the Federal Capital Territory.
They said they became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour covering the 36 states and the FCT.
According to the plaintiffs, imposing substantial billboard charges across the country could make it difficult, if not impossible, for presidential candidates to remain within the campaign expenditure ceiling prescribed by the Electoral Act 2026.
The plaintiffs cited Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, which they said places the total expenditure limit for a presidential election campaign at N10bn nationwide.
They argued that widespread state-imposed billboard charges could consume a substantial portion of the statutory limit before other campaign expenses, including transportation, media, venues, logistics and agents, are taken into consideration
At the heart of the case is the authority of the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency to impose what the plaintiffs described as a prohibitive campaign fee.
Makinde and the APM are asking the court to set aside regulations made by ASAA concerning political campaigns, including the N200m charge on presidential candidates.
They are also seeking an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and representatives from enforcing the fee or removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within Abia State.
The plaintiffs want the court to declare the fee schedule unconstitutional, null and void from inception on the grounds that it is inconsistent with federal electoral legislation.
Makinde and the APM further argued that the Electoral Act prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies in a manner that gives an advantage or disadvantage to a political party or candidate.
They specifically relied on Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that the alleged N200m charge undermines the principle of a level playing field for candidates.
They contended that using a state regulatory agency to impose what they consider an exorbitant charge could effectively restrict the visibility of candidates who lack access to substantial financial resources.
The plaintiffs further argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has the statutory responsibility to regulate political campaigns for electoral purposes, relying on provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
While acknowledging that outdoor signage regulation is within the regulatory sphere of states, the plaintiffs argued that such powers must not be exercised in a manner that conflicts with federal electoral legislation.
They relied on Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that where a state law, directive or administrative regulation conflicts with an Act of the National Assembly, the federal legislation prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
The plaintiffs consequently asked the court to determine whether ASAA’s N200m campaign fee is legally sustainable in view of the provisions governing electoral campaigns.
They have raised six questions for determination and are seeking eight reliefs from the court.
Makinde and the APM also warned that failure to intervene could cause what they described as irreparable damage to the presidential candidate’s constitutional right to seek public office and potentially affect the principle of equal opportunity among contestants.
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
