Makinde, APM Sue Abia Governor Otti Over ₦200m Campaign Fee.

The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, together with the party, have filed a suit against Abia State Governor Alex Otti and other state institutions over an alleged ₦200 million fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.

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

Joined as defendants are the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ABSAA) and the State House of Assembly. The plaintiffs asked that all four defendants be served within 30 days.

Makinde and the APM contend that the fee imposed by the signage agency is unconstitutional and violates provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws.

They are seeking, among other reliefs, an order setting aside regulations made by ABSAA concerning political campaigns, including the ₦200 million fee (or any other amount) imposed on presidential candidates.

They also prayed the court for 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.

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. They further 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.

Makinde and the APM argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is 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.

They contended that fixing the ₦200 million 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.

The suit also relies on Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which caps total campaign expenditure for a presidential election at ₦10 billion nationwide. 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.

While acknowledging that outdoor signage regulation falls within states’ residual powers, the plaintiffs maintained that such 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.

In a supporting affidavit deposed to by Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, described as APM’s National Welfare Officer, the claimants stated that they became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour covering all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

They maintained 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.