By Esther Olaoluwa |
The Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce Section 151 of the Electoral Act and ensure equal opportunities for political parties, amid the imposition of hefty fees and restrictions on campaign billboards and other materials by some state governments.
The party’s call comes as states including Abia, Anambra, Bauchi, Ebonyi, Enugu and Oyo introduce campaign guidelines, levies and permit fees ahead of the election season, with some charges running into hundreds of millions of naira.
Political stakeholders and opposition parties have raised concerns that the fees could restrict access to campaign platforms and create an uneven playing field, particularly for candidates and parties with limited financial resources.
South-East records high campaign fees
In Abia State, the Abia State Structure for Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA) announced campaign advertising permit fees of 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 House of Assembly candidates.
The rates were unveiled during the agency’s 2026 stakeholders’ engagement forum in Aba.
Ndubuisi Nwaogwugwu, Head of Department, Strategy, Innovation and Design at ABSSAA, said the schedule applied to candidates of all political parties throughout the approved election campaign period.
Anambra State has also introduced campaign outdoor permit fees through the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA).
The agency pegged the fee at N50 million for presidential candidates and N20 million for senatorial candidates. House of Representatives candidates are to pay N5 million, while State House of Assembly candidates are required to pay N1.5 million.
Local government chairmanship candidates are to pay N2.5 million, while councillorship candidates are to pay N100,000.
Candidates are also required to obtain permit clearance before erecting billboards, mounting banners or pasting posters in public spaces. The state has prohibited the pasting of campaign posters on public infrastructure, including bridge pillars, strategic poles, government buildings, healthcare facilities and educational institutions.
In Enugu State, the government has imposed a N150 million fee for candidates seeking to deploy campaign materials, erect or use billboards, or use branded campaign vehicles.
The policy, implemented through the Enugu State Structure for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA), has been justified as a measure to regulate environmental aesthetics, prevent defacement of public infrastructure and boost internally generated revenue.
However, a team of lawyers led by Ben Okolo has approached the court seeking to stop the implementation of the fees, arguing that the mandatory advertisement charges are unconstitutional and could financially exclude opposition candidates.
In Ebonyi State, authorities have restricted campaign posters in areas including public schools, electric poles and flyover bridges, with offenders liable to a N5 million fine.
Imo State, meanwhile, has not announced fixed campaign fees, with charges reportedly determined by specific parameters.
Northern states also impose restrictions
In Kano State, political billboard charges are regulated under the Kano State Government Signage Registration Guidelines through the Kano State Advertising and Signage Agency.
Permit fees vary according to location density and structure type, with urban unipole billboard permits costing up to N3 million, alongside processing and site inspection levies.
In Bauchi State, the PRP accused the state government of applying campaign restrictions selectively.
The party’s state chairman, Abdurrahman Yusuf Muazu, alleged that the ruling Allied Peoples Movement (APM) continued to display its logos, colours and insignia on public facilities despite a directive requiring political parties to remove campaign billboards, banners and posters from public infrastructure.
The PRP specifically cited the Kofar Gombe, Kofar Nassarawa and Kofar Ran gates, describing the alleged use of the facilities for political branding as an abuse of public infrastructure.
The party said selective enforcement of campaign regulations could undermine fairness, equity and the rule of law.
“Such actions undermine fairness, equity and the rule of law, while creating an uneven playing field ahead of future elections,” the party stated, adding that the development contravened provisions of Sections 92 to 95 of the Electoral Act.
The PRP subsequently called on INEC to intervene under Section 151 of the Electoral Act and ensure equal opportunities for political parties in campaign activities.
Parties reject prohibitive fees
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Abia State also condemned the fees, describing them as “outrageous, punitive and manifestly anti-democratic.”
Its publicity secretary, Jude Udeachara, said the charges could frustrate legitimate campaigns and prevent less financially endowed candidates from reaching voters.
The PDP cited Section 92 of the Electoral Act, which sets election expenditure limits at N10 billion for presidential candidates, N3 billion for governorship candidates, N500 million for senatorial candidates, N250 million for House of Representatives candidates and N100 million for State House of Assembly candidates.
The party argued that the billboard fees could consume a substantial portion of the legally permitted campaign expenditure of candidates.
It gave the example of a State House of Assembly candidate in Abia, saying the N20 million billboard fee represents 20 per cent of the candidate’s N100 million expenditure ceiling.
The PDP also argued that if the N200 million fee for presidential candidates were replicated across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, a presidential candidate could spend N7.4 billion on permits alone.
It therefore urged INEC to engage the Abia State Government, examine the implications of the fees and issue appropriate guidance to prevent state institutions from frustrating lawful political campaigns.
The Abia State chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kalu Kalu, said the party would comply if ABSSAA’s law provided a legal basis for the charges but maintained that any fee not backed by law should be cancelled.
Kalu also argued that previous Supreme Court rulings had settled the issue of outdoor advertising fees, claiming that the Constitution vested responsibility for collecting such fees in local governments.
The African Action Congress (AAC) governorship candidate, Doris Ogala, also rejected the charges and challenged the state authorities to remove her campaign billboards.
In Enugu, ADC senatorial candidate Ogochukwu Onyema described the restrictions as an attempt to distract opposition parties.
“They are asking us to pay certain fees to mount campaign billboards and posters; they are also stopping us from gathering in public places and using public infrastructure, among other things,” he said.
PDP National Vice Chairman in the South-East, Ray Nnaji, similarly accused some state governments of attempting to undermine opposition parties by imposing high billboard fees and restricting access to public facilities.
“There is no level playing field,” Nnaji said, alleging that some opposition parties had struggled to secure venues for congresses and primaries because of restrictions imposed by authorities.
Calls grow for INEC intervention
Professor Jehu Onyekwere Nnaji, a Professor of International Law and Global Politics at the University of Kansas Law School in the United States, also called on INEC to intervene and enforce rules that protect democratic participation.
He said political parties should be guaranteed a level playing field ahead of the elections.
The President of the Global Legislative Organisation for Better Environment, Sam Onuigbo, also criticised what he described as attempts by some state governments to restrict campaigns under the guise of environmental protection.
Onuigbo argued that policy guidelines governing campaign activities should be properly established and communicated to stakeholders.
“Election is just five months away, in the absence of a clear Climate Governance Framework, any government pushing up policies against open campaigns in the guise of environmental sanitation and preservation should be seen as ambushing the system,” he said.
With campaign restrictions and advertising fees becoming a growing issue across several states, stakeholders are now looking to INEC to clarify the boundaries between legitimate regulation of public spaces and measures that could restrict political parties’ ability to reach voters.
The PRP maintained that INEC’s intervention under Section 151 of the Electoral Act is necessary to safeguard fairness and equal participation in the electoral process.
Share this
