The 2027 political season is already generating legal and regulatory disputes, with Oyo State Governor and presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Seyi Makinde, and his party taking legal action against Abia State Governor Alex Otti and other state authorities over an alleged ₦200 million campaign advertising fee.
The suit, numbered HU/214/2026, was filed on September 17, 2026, before the Abia State High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division. Makinde and the APM are challenging what they describe as a fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign billboards and other outdoor advertisements within Abia State.
The plaintiffs instituted the case 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.
Named as defendants alongside Governor Otti are the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ABSAA) and the Abia State House of Assembly. The plaintiffs have requested that the defendants be served within 30 days.
At the centre of the legal dispute is the alleged ₦200 million charge for presidential campaign materials. Makinde and the APM are asking the court to set aside the regulations allegedly introduced by the state signage agency in relation to political campaigns, including the disputed fee or any other amount prescribed for the same purpose.
They are also seeking a perpetual injunction preventing the defendants, their agents or representatives from enforcing the charge or removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing their campaign billboards and other outdoor advertisements in Abia State.
The plaintiffs want the court to declare the disputed fee inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other applicable federal legislation, and therefore invalid from the outset.
They further contend that the alleged charge conflicts with Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which provides that state apparatus, including the media, must not be used to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate during an election. The Electoral Act also provides under Section 99(1) that candidates and political parties are to conduct campaigns in accordance with rules and regulations determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Makinde and the APM argue that INEC has the constitutional and statutory responsibility to establish rules governing political campaigns. Based on this position, they contend that a state regulatory agency should not impose a campaign-related requirement that, in their view, conflicts with federal electoral legislation.
The plaintiffs further argue that the alleged ₦200 million charge could create a significant financial barrier for presidential candidates seeking visibility through outdoor advertising. They contend that if comparable charges were imposed across multiple states, the accumulated cost could consume a substantial portion of the statutory presidential campaign expenditure limit.
Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026 provides a ₦10 billion ceiling for expenses incurred by a presidential candidate in connection with an election. The plaintiffs argue that campaign billboard charges must therefore be considered alongside other expenses, including transportation, media advertising, venues, security and election-related logistics.
The legal challenge also raises questions about the relationship between state regulatory powers and federal electoral legislation. While the plaintiffs acknowledge that states have powers relating to outdoor advertising and signage, they maintain that such powers cannot be exercised in a manner that overrides or frustrates valid federal electoral laws.
They have therefore asked the court to determine whether the disputed fee is legally enforceable and whether the regulations under which it was allegedly introduced are consistent with the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, Aisha Abdullahi Abubakar, identified as the APM National Welfare Officer, stated that the party became aware of the alleged charge while preparing for a nationwide campaign programme covering the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
The plaintiffs maintain that continued enforcement of the disputed fee could affect their ability to display campaign materials in Abia and, according to their court filings, interfere with what they describe as their constitutional right to participate in the electoral process.
The case adds another legal dimension to preparations for Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, particularly over the regulation and cost of political advertising. The court will ultimately determine the legal validity of the disputed fee and the wider claims raised by the plaintiffs.
ALSO READ: 2027: Obi Aguocha; The Giant Killer Will Kill The Giant Again – Brown Justice
Until the court rules on the matter, the allegations and constitutional arguments advanced by Makinde and the APM remain claims before the court rather than established judicial findings.
