The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Seyi Makinde, its presidential candidate, have sued Alex Otti, governor of Abia, over a N200 million fee imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state.
The suit marked HC/214/2026 was filed before a high court in
Umuahia, Abia state. Other defendants are the attorney-general of Abia state,
Abia State Signage and Agency (ABSAA),
and the Abia state house of assembly.
ABSAA had fixed N200 million for presidential candidates,
N150 million for governorship candidates, N100 million for senatorial
candidates, N50 million for house of representatives candidates and N20 million
for state assembly candidates seeking campaign advertising permits in the
state.
The plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the campaign
advertising fee, arguing that it is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and
the Electoral Act 2026.
They are asking the court to determine whether the state can
impose the charge on presidential candidates for the display of campaign
materials.
Makinde and the APM, through their lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi,
a senior advocate of Nigeria, raised six questions for determination and are
seeking eight reliefs.
They want the court to set aside the regulations made by
ABSAA in relation to political campaigns, including the N200 million fee
imposed on presidential candidates.
They are also seeking an injunction restraining the
defendants, their agents and privies from enforcing the fee or removing,
defacing, destroying or obstructing their campaign billboards and outdoor s in
Abia.
Relying on Item F, section 15(a) and (f) of the third
schedule to the constitution, sections 92 and 99 of the Electoral Act 2026, and
Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of the constitution, the plaintiffs are asking the court
to declare that the N200 million fee is null and void.
They submit that the Electoral Act prohibits the use of
state apparatus or regulatory bodies to the advantage or disadvantage of any
political party or candidate.
The APM and Makinde further argued that the constitution and
Electoral Act vest the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with
the power to make rules and regulations governing political campaigns for
candidates and political parties.
They argued that although states may regulate outdoor
advertising, such powers cannot be exercised in a manner that obstructs or
restricts a presidential candidate’s right to campaign.
The plaintiffs further argued that state regulations cannot
override federal legislation on election campaigns.
They also relied on section 92 of the Electoral Act, which
they said places a N10 billion limit on expenditure by a presidential candidate
during an election campaign.
They argued that imposing a N200 million fee in individual
states could make compliance with the statutory spending limit difficult if
similar charges were imposed across the country.
The plaintiffs also contended that Sections 1(3) and 4(5) of
the Constitution render any state law or administrative regulation inconsistent
with an Act of the national assembly void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Consequently, they are praying the court to intervene,
arguing that failure to do so would affect Makinde’s right to campaign for
public office and undermine a level playing field for political parties and
candidates.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com