The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, alongside his party, has instituted a legal action against Abia State Governor Alex Otti over an alleged ₦200 million campaign advertising fee imposed on presidential candidates in the state.
The suit, marked HU/214/2026, was reportedly filed on September 17, 2026, before the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division.
Makinde and the APM listed Governor Otti, the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the Abia State House of Assembly as defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs are challenging a fee reportedly imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign billboards and other outdoor advertising materials in Abia State.
They are asking the court to set aside the regulations made by the state signage agency relating to political campaigns, including the ₦200 million charge or any similar amount imposed on presidential candidates.
Makinde and the APM are also seeking an injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from enforcing the disputed fee.
They further want the court to prevent the removal, defacing, destruction or obstruction of their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements within the state.
Why Makinde And APM Are Challenging The Fee
In their court filings, Makinde and the APM reportedly argued that the ₦200 million charge is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other relevant federal laws.
They contend that the fee could create financial difficulties for presidential candidates, particularly if similar charges were introduced across several states.
The plaintiffs also cited the presidential campaign expenditure limit under Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, which they said makes the imposition of very high state-level campaign charges a matter of concern.
According to their argument, if presidential candidates were required to pay similar amounts in multiple states simply to display campaign materials, a significant portion of the statutory campaign spending limit could be consumed by billboard and outdoor advertising permits alone.
The APM and Makinde further argued that state regulatory agencies should not be used in a manner that gives an advantage or disadvantage to any political party or candidate.
They relied, among other provisions, on Section 99 of the Electoral Act 2026, which they said prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies to favour or disadvantage political parties or candidates during an election.
The plaintiffs also argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has constitutional and statutory responsibilities relating to rules and regulations governing political campaigns.
Plaintiffs Seek Protection For Campaign Materials
Beyond challenging the financial requirement, Makinde and the APM are asking the court to protect their campaign materials from being removed, defaced, destroyed or obstructed by the defendants or their agents while the dispute is being determined.
The plaintiffs reportedly said they became aware of the fee while preparing for a nationwide campaign tour covering the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
They maintained that the disputed charge could affect their ability to conduct their campaign activities and reach voters in Abia State.
The legal challenge is therefore centred on whether the state government’s regulation of outdoor advertising can include the disputed campaign charge and, if so, whether such a charge is consistent with federal electoral legislation.
The court is expected to determine the legal issues raised by the plaintiffs and the responses of the defendants.
