Governor Makinde, APM File Suit Against Abia Over N200 Million Campaign Charge

The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and current Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, along with his party, has initiated legal proceedings against Abia State Governor, Alex Otti. The lawsuit stems from an alleged N200 million charge imposed on presidential candidates wishing to display campaign materials within Abia State. Details of the suit, identified as HU/214/2026, were made public to our correspondent on Sunday. It was lodged at the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17. The legal team representing Makinde and the APM includes Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, Ire Egert-Olusesi, Ridwan Azeez, Oluwabusola Oluwaniyi, and Joseph Lukman, all from Musibau Adetunbi, SAN & Co., Ibadan. Named as defendants in the action are the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ABSAA), and the State House of Assembly. The plaintiffs have requested that all four defendants be served with the legal documents within 30 days.

Makinde and the APM contend that the fee, which was levied by the state signage agency, is unconstitutional. They argue that it contravenes provisions within the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant legislation. Among the specific reliefs sought, the plaintiffs are asking the court to invalidate regulations established by ABSAA concerning political campaigns, particularly the N200 million fee for presidential candidates or any other related charges. Furthermore, they are seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants and their agents from enforcing the said fee, or from “removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing” the placement of their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements across Abia State.

The legal action also calls for the court to declare the N200 million fee inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026, and other federal laws, thereby deeming it null and void from its inception. The claimants further argue that this fee directly violates Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, which expressly prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to confer an advantage or disadvantage upon any political party or candidate.

Makinde and the APM's legal argument asserts that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) possesses the sole authority to formulate rules and regulations pertaining to political campaigns. They base this assertion on Item F, Section 15(a) and (f) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, along with Section 99(1) of the Electoral Act 2026. They maintain that setting a N200 million fee through the state signage agency is a tactic to exclude non-incumbent candidates from public visibility, thereby unfairly benefiting a ruling party that is better equipped to cover such substantial costs.

The lawsuit also references Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which sets a nationwide cap of N10 billion for total presidential election campaign expenditure. The plaintiffs highlight that if similar charges were to be implemented across all states, the cumulative cost for billboards alone could consume over 80 percent of this N10 billion limit, even before accounting for other essential campaign expenses like travel, media advertising, venue rentals, security, and payments to agents across more than 176,974 polling units nationwide.

The claimants maintain that while states do hold residual powers regarding outdoor signage regulation, this authority cannot be exercised in a manner that obstructs or overrides federal electoral legislation. They cite Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, which underscore the supremacy of validly enacted federal laws. The supporting affidavit for the suit was sworn by Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, identified as the National Welfare Officer for the APM. She affirmed that the plaintiffs became aware of the controversial fee while preparing for a comprehensive nationwide campaign tour that includes all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. The plaintiffs concluded that without judicial intervention, their constitutional right to seek public office would suffer irreparable damage, and the fundamental principle of a level playing field for all political contestants would be compromised.