The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement, Seyi Makinde, and the party have sued the Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, over an alleged N200m campaign fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
The suit, marked HU/214/2026, was filed at the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17 by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, alongside other members of his legal team.
The plaintiffs joined the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the State House of Assembly as defendants.
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.
They asked the court to set aside regulations made by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency concerning political campaigns, including the N200m fee imposed on presidential candidates or any other amount.
The plaintiffs also sought 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 in the state.
They further asked the court to declare the fee inconsistent with the Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other federal legislation, and therefore null and void.
The plaintiffs argued that the fee contravened 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.
Makinde and the APM also argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission was exclusively empowered to make rules and regulations concerning political campaigns.
They relied 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.
According to the plaintiffs, fixing the N200m fee amounted to using the state signage agency to restrict non-incumbent candidates from gaining public visibility, while giving an advantage to a ruling party that could more easily absorb the cost.
The suit also relied on Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which places the total campaign expenditure limit for a presidential election at N10bn nationwide.
The claimants argued that if similar charges were imposed across other states, billboard fees alone could consume more than 80 per cent of the campaign spending limit, before other expenses such as travel, media, venue rentals, security and payments to agents were considered.
They acknowledged that states have powers to regulate outdoor advertising but argued that such powers could not be used to frustrate or override federal electoral laws.
The plaintiffs cited Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, which provide for the supremacy of validly enacted federal laws.
The supporting affidavit was deposed to by Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, described as the APM National Welfare Officer.
She said the claimants became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour covering the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
The plaintiffs told the court that unless it intervened, the fee would cause irreparable harm to their constitutional right to seek public office and undermine the principle of a level playing field for all candidates.
