Makinde, APM Sue Otti Over N200m Campaign Fee

The presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, alongside the party, have filed a lawsuit against Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, over an alleged N200 million fee required for presidential candidates to display campaign materials in the state.

The case was filed at the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division, on September 17, 2026. It was registered as suit number HU/214/2026.

Makinde and the APM are challenging the fee reportedly introduced by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency for presidential candidates seeking to put up campaign billboards and other outdoor materials in the state.

The suit was filed through a legal team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Musibau Adetunbi, alongside Ire Egert-Olusesi, Ridwan Azeez, Oluwabusola Oluwaniyi and Joseph Lukman of Musibau Adetunbi, SAN & Co., Ibadan.

The plaintiffs listed the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the Abia State House of Assembly as defendants. They requested that the defendants be served with the court documents within 30 days.

Makinde and the APM argued that the N200 million campaign fee was unconstitutional and inconsistent with provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and other applicable laws.

They asked the court to cancel the regulations issued by the signage agency concerning political campaigns, particularly the provision requiring presidential candidates to pay N200 million or any other amount for campaign advertising.

The plaintiffs also requested a permanent order preventing the defendants, their officials or agents from enforcing the fee or interfering with their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements across Abia State.

They want the court to declare the fee invalid on the grounds that it conflicts with the Nigerian Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other federal laws.

The plaintiffs further argued that the fee violates Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, which prohibits the use of state agencies or government structures to favour or disadvantage a political party or candidate.

Makinde and the APM also maintained that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has the authority to make rules governing political campaigns, relying on relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026.

According to the plaintiffs, the N200 million charge could make it difficult for candidates who are not in government to maintain visibility during the election campaign, particularly when compared with parties that have greater financial resources.

The suit also referred to Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which places the total spending limit for a presidential campaign at N10 billion nationwide.

The claimants argued that if states introduced similar charges, the combined cost of billboard and outdoor advertising could take up more than 80 per cent of the presidential campaign spending limit before other campaign expenses such as transportation, media advertising, venue hire, security and payments to election agents were considered.

They acknowledged that states have powers to regulate outdoor advertising and signage within their territories but argued that such powers should not be used in a way that conflicts with federal electoral laws.

The plaintiffs relied on constitutional provisions dealing with the supremacy of the Constitution and valid federal legislation over conflicting state laws.

An affidavit supporting the case was sworn by Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, identified as the National Welfare Officer of the APM.

Abubakar stated that the plaintiffs became aware of the N200 million fee while making preparations for a nationwide campaign tour covering all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

The plaintiffs told the court that allowing the fee to remain in force could affect their ability to campaign freely and exercise their constitutional right to seek elective office.

They therefore asked the court to intervene and prevent what they described as an unfair restriction on political campaigns and equal participation in the electoral process.