The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement, Seyi Makinde, and the party have dragged Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, before the state High Court over an alleged N200 million fee for presidential campaign billboards and other outdoor advertisements.
The suit, marked HU/214/2026, was filed on September 17 at the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, by the plaintiffs’ legal team led by Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, of Musibau Adetunbi, SAN & Co., Ibadan. Other members of the team are Ire Egert-Olusesi, Ridwan Azeez, Oluwabusola Oluwaniyi and Joseph Lukman.
The plaintiffs also listed the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the state House of Assembly as defendants, requesting that all four parties be served within 30 days.
Makinde and the APM are challenging the N200 million charge, describing it as unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026 and other applicable laws.
Among the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is an order nullifying regulations issued by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency in relation to political campaigns, particularly the provision imposing the N200 million charge on presidential candidates.
They are also asking the court to permanently restrain the defendants, their officials and agents from enforcing the fee or interfering with their campaign materials by “removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing” the placement of campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements across the state.
The claimants further want the court to declare the fee incompatible with the Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other federal laws, and consequently null and void ab initio.
They specifically cited Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, arguing that the provision prohibits state agencies and regulatory bodies from being used to confer an advantage or disadvantage on a political party or candidate.
READ ALSO:2027: Don’t Underestimate Makinde, Bala Mohammed Warns Opponents
According to the plaintiffs, the Independent National Electoral Commission has the exclusive authority to establish rules governing political campaigns, citing Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution and Section 99(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.
They contended that the N200 million charge effectively places non-incumbent presidential candidates at a disadvantage by limiting their access to public advertising spaces, while giving an advantage to parties with greater financial capacity.
The plaintiffs also relied on Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which places the overall campaign expenditure limit for a presidential election at N10 billion nationwide.
They argued that if comparable billboard charges were introduced across the country, the cumulative cost could account for more than 80 per cent of the statutory campaign spending limit, even before expenses on transportation, media advertising, venues, security and agents across the country were considered.
Makinde and the APM acknowledged that states have powers to regulate outdoor advertising but maintained that such authority cannot be exercised in a manner that conflicts with federal electoral legislation.
They invoked Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, arguing that state laws, directives or regulations inconsistent with valid federal legislation are invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, APM National Welfare Officer, Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, said the party became aware of the charge while making preparations for a nationwide campaign tour covering the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
The claimants maintained that failure by the court to intervene could cause them irreparable harm by affecting their constitutional right to seek elective office and undermining the principle of equal opportunity among political contestants.