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

The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and its presidential candidate, Seyi Makinde, have sued Abia State Governor Alex Otti and other state authorities over a ₦200 million campaign advertising permit fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.

The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed before the High Court of Abia State, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17, 2026, by the plaintiffs' legal team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Musibau Adetunbi.

Other defendants are the Attorney-General of Abia State, the Abia State Signages and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA) and the Abia State House of Assembly.

ABSSAA announced the political campaign advertising fee structure in July. Under the schedule, presidential candidates are required to pay ₦200 million, while governorship candidates are charged ₦150 million, senatorial candidates ₦100 million, House of Representatives candidates ₦50 million and State House of Assembly candidates ₦20 million for campaign advertising permits.

Makinde and the APM are challenging the legality of the charges, arguing that the fee conflicts with provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant laws.

Among the questions the plaintiffs have asked the court to determine is whether the Abia State Government and its agencies have the constitutional and legal authority to impose the ₦200 million charge on presidential candidates for displaying campaign materials.

They are seeking an order setting aside ABSSAA's regulations relating to political campaign advertising, including the ₦200 million charge.

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to restrain the defendants and their agents from enforcing the fee or removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing their campaign billboards and other outdoor advertisements in Abia State.

In their legal arguments, Makinde and the APM contend that state regulatory bodies should not be used in a manner that advantages or disadvantages political parties or candidates.

They are relying, among other provisions, on Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which they argue restricts the use of state apparatus or regulatory mechanisms to the advantage or disadvantage of political parties and candidates.

The plaintiffs also argue that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has statutory responsibilities relating to the regulation of political campaigns and that state powers over outdoor advertising should not be exercised in a manner that conflicts with federal electoral legislation.

They further contend that the ₦200 million fee could create difficulties for presidential candidates in complying with the statutory campaign spending limit if similar charges were imposed across other states.

The plaintiffs cited Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, which they say limits spending on a presidential campaign to ₦10 billion nationwide. They argued that widespread state-level campaign advertising charges could consume a significant portion of that limit.

They also relied on Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, arguing that any state law or regulation inconsistent with an Act of the National Assembly is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

The legal challenge follows Abia government's defence of the fee when it was introduced in July. The state said the charges applied to candidates across political parties and were intended to regulate outdoor advertising, protect public spaces and support orderly political campaigning.

The court is now expected to determine the issues raised by the APM and Makinde. No judicial determination has yet been made on the validity of the ₦200 million fee.