2027 ELECTIONS: MAKINDE DRAGS OTTI TO COURT OVER ₦200M CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING FEE IN ABIA

The 2027 presidential election campaign has taken a legal turn as Oyo State Governor and presidential candidate of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Seyi Makinde, and his party have dragged Abia State Governor Alex Otti to court over a ₦200 million campaign advertising 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. The defendants include Governor Alex Otti, the Abia State Attorney-General, the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the Abia State House of Assembly.

According to reports on the suit, the campaign advertising fee was fixed at ₦200 million for presidential candidates, while other categories of candidates were also assigned separate fees. The reported schedule includes ₦150 million for governorship candidates, ₦100 million for senatorial candidates, ₦50 million for House of Representatives candidates and ₦20 million for State House of Assembly candidates.

Makinde and the APM are challenging the legality of the presidential campaign fee, arguing that it is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026.

Through their lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, the plaintiffs asked the court to set aside the regulations under which the fee was imposed and to restrain the defendants from enforcing the charge or removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing their campaign billboards and outdoor advertisements in Abia State.

A major part of Makinde and the APM’s argument centres on Section 99 of the Electoral Act 2026. They contend that state apparatus or regulatory agencies should not be used in a manner that gives an advantage or disadvantage to any political party or candidate.

The plaintiffs also argue that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the authority to make rules governing political campaigns, and that state regulations concerning outdoor advertising should not be applied in a way that conflicts with federal electoral legislation.

Another issue raised in the case is the statutory limit on presidential campaign expenditure. Makinde and the APM point to Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, which they say sets the maximum expenditure for a presidential campaign at ₦10 billion nationwide.

Their argument is that if similar ₦200 million campaign advertising charges were imposed across the states, candidates could be forced to spend a substantial portion of the statutory limit on billboard and outdoor advertising permits alone, before accounting for other campaign expenses such as media advertising, transportation, rallies, venues, security and election agents.

The plaintiffs therefore want the court to declare the ₦200 million fee unconstitutional, inconsistent with federal electoral legislation and null and void ab initio. They are also asking for an injunction preventing the enforcement of the charge against their campaign activities in Abia.

The dispute comes as Makinde’s presidential campaign activities gather momentum ahead of the 2027 election. Reports indicate that his campaign organisation has begun preparations for zonal town-hall meetings across the six geopolitical zones as part of its consultations and mobilisation efforts.

THE BIGGER ISSUE

Beyond the political personalities involved, the case raises a broader question about the boundary between state regulation of outdoor advertising and the rights of political candidates to campaign during an election period.

States have responsibilities for regulating signage, billboards and the use of public spaces. However, Makinde and the APM are asking the court to determine whether that regulatory power can extend to a charge they consider capable of restricting political campaigning or conflicting with federal electoral law.

The court’s eventual interpretation could therefore have implications beyond Makinde’s campaign in Abia, particularly if other states introduce comparable charges for political advertising.

PERSONAL VIEW

In my view, the important issue here is not simply the disagreement between Makinde and Otti. The more significant question is whether campaign advertising regulations can be structured in a way that allows states to maintain control over public spaces without creating financial barriers that could affect candidates’ ability to campaign.

At the same time, the legality of the ₦200 million charge is ultimately a matter for the court to determine. Claims made by Makinde and the APM in the lawsuit should therefore be treated as arguments before the court, not established judicial findings.

The case could become an important legal test ahead of the 2027 elections because its outcome may clarify how far state authorities can go in regulating political advertising while remaining consistent with Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral framework.

For now, the central question before the court remains straightforward: Can a state impose a ₦200 million campaign advertising fee on presidential candidates, or does such a charge conflict with federal electoral law and the constitutional framework governing elections?