JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
Toyyibat Qasim
Presidential candidate of the Allied People’s Movement, APM, and Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, together with his party, have dragged Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, to court over an alleged $200 million mandatory tax imposed on presidential candidates seeking to display election materials in the state.
Makinde and the APM contest the legality of the tax, arguing that it violates the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the 2026 Electoral Law.
The suit, marked HC/214/2026, was filed in the Abia State High Court through their lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN. Other defendants joined in the suit are the Attorney General of Abia State, the Abia State Signage and Advertising Agency, ASAA, and the State House of Assembly.
The legal action comes as political parties and candidates prepare for the 2027 general election and the start of nationwide campaign activities.
In their lawsuit, Makinde and the APM argued that the $200 million tax would create a severe financial burden on presidential candidates, particularly if similar charges were imposed by other states and the Federal Capital Territory.
They said they became aware of the tariff while preparing for a nationwide election tour covering the 36 states and the FCT.
According to the plaintiffs, imposing large charges for billboards across the country could make it difficult, if not impossible, for presidential candidates to stay within the campaign spending cap prescribed by the 2026 Election Law.
The appellants cited Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2026, which they said places the total expenditure limit for a presidential election campaign at N10 billion nationwide.
They argued that widespread state-mandated billboard fees could eat up a substantial portion of the legal limit before other campaign expenses, including transportation, media, venues, logistics and agents, are taken into account.
At the heart of the case is the Abia State Signage and Advertising Agency’s authority to impose what the plaintiffs have described as a prohibitive poll fee.
Makinde and the APM are asking the court to strike down rules issued by the ASAA relating to political campaigns, including the $200 million tax on presidential candidates.
They are also seeking an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and representatives from levying the tariff or removing, defacing, destroying or obstructing election hoardings and outdoor advertisements in Abia State.
The plaintiffs want the court to declare the fee schedule unconstitutional, void from the start on the grounds that it is inconsistent with federal election law.
Makinde and the APM also argued that the electoral law prohibits the use of state apparatus or regulatory bodies in a way that benefits or disadvantages a political party or candidate.
They specifically relied on section 99(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that the alleged $200 million tax undermines the principle of a level playing field for candidates.
They argued that using a state regulatory agency to impose what they consider an exorbitant fee could actually limit the visibility of applicants who lack access to substantial financial resources.
The applicants further argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has the statutory responsibility to regulate political campaigns for electoral purposes, relying on the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Law.
While acknowledging that the regulation of outdoor signs falls within the regulatory purview of the States, the appellants argued that such powers should not be exercised in a manner that conflicts with federal election legislation.
They relied on Articles 1(3) and 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that where a state law, directive or administrative regulation conflicts with a law of the National Assembly, to the extent of the inconsistency the federal legislation prevails.
The plaintiffs therefore asked the court to determine whether ASAA’s $200 million election compensation is legally sustainable in light of the provisions governing election campaigns.
They have raised six questions for determination and are seeking eight reliefs from the court.
Makinde and the APM also warned that failure to act could cause what they described as irreparable harm to the presidential candidate’s constitutional right to run for public office and potentially affect the principle of equal opportunities among contestants.
‘Want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need advertising for a product, service or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Please donate any amount HERE
