Barely a week before the official commencement of election rallies, some state governments are fast deploying stringent campaign guidelines, fees, and levies for candidates’ campaign posters and billboards.

The move, in the guise of regulating the political space and ensuring environmental protection, has led to states like Abia, Anambra, Bauchi, Ebonyi, Enugu, Oyo, Kano and other states, where political parties are being levied huge sums of money ranging from N20 million to upwards of N200 million to erect campaign billboards, post bills and other information, enlightenment and communication materials.

Before the election season, nationwide billboard advertising ranges from N200,000 to N15 million per month, depending on the city and location.

However, the sudden jump to N200 million has created an atmosphere of attempted disenfranchisement of opponents, particularly in the South-East region.

Stakeholders lament that these underhanded electoral strategies could limit the quality and quantity of alternative ideas and propositions that the voters need to make informed choices, thereby further diminishing the competitiveness of Nigeria’s democracy.

In the South-East, except in Imo State, where the state government has yet to announce fees for campaign materials mounted in open spaces, the other four states – Abia, Enugu, Anambra and Ebonyi – have announced various fees and conditions that candidates must meet to display their campaign billboards.

South-East takes lead in hefty campaign fees

The Abia State Government recently announced that certain fees must be paid as a condition for any candidate in the elections to mount campaign billboards.

According to the rates announced by the Abia State Structure for Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA), presidential candidates seeking to display campaign materials in the state are expected to pay N200 million, while governorship candidates are to pay N150 million.

Senatorial candidates must pay N100 million, House of Representatives candidates N50 million, and State House of Assembly candidates N20 million. The rates were unveiled during the agency’s 2026 stakeholders’ engagement forum in Aba.

Head of Department, Strategy, Innovation and Design, ABSSAA, Ndubuisi Nwaogwugwu, added that the permit rates schedule applied to all political party candidates at all levels in the state.

He said it was based on ABSSAA and other Abia laws regulating signage and advertising.

“The schedule of Political Campaign Advertising Permit Fees contained herein has been approved by the Government of Abia State and applies throughout the approved election campaign period,” he stated.

The Anambra State Government, through the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA), also imposed several fees payable depending on the offices being sought in the elections.

The fees payable by the parties and their candidates are N50 million for Presidential seats, N20 million for the Senate, and varying amounts for the House of Representatives, the state House of Assembly, local government chairmen, and councillors, respectively.

The Assistant General Manager of the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA), Chika Ngobili, said the presidential candidates would part with N50 million for campaign outdoor permits, while senatorial candidates are expected to pay N20 million, House of Representatives candidates would pay N5 million, candidates for the Anambra State House of Assembly would pay N1.5 million, local government chairmanship candidates would pay N2.5 million, while councillorship candidates would pay N100,000.

Additionally, candidates are required to obtain permit clearance before erecting billboards, mounting banners, or pasting posters in public spaces.

The government has further prohibited the pasting of posters on public infrastructure, such as bridge pillars, strategic poles, government buildings, healthcare facilities, and educational institutions.

Although the Imo State Government has not imposed any fixed fees, charges are calculated based on specific parameters rather than fixed levies for candidates, among other conditions.

In Ebonyi State, while the government has restricted the posting of campaign posters in some areas, including public schools, electric poles and flyover bridges, with offenders liable to a fine of N5 million, it has allegedly gone ahead to stifle the political space against opposition party candidates.

In Enugu, the state government has imposed a N150 million fee before any candidate can deploy campaign materials, erect or utilise billboards, or use branded campaign vehicles.

The policy is being implemented through the State Structure for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA), with the government insisting that it is a way to regulate environmental aesthetics, prevent the defacement of public infrastructure, and boost internally generated revenue.

A team of lawyers led by Ben Okolo has already approached the court to prevent the implementation of the fees in Enugu State.

They are asking the court to declare the mandatory advertisement fees unconstitutional. They stated that the policy is designed to financially exclude opposition candidates and restrict fair democratic participation and freedom of expression.

Northern states are not left out

Charges for political billboards in Kano are regulated by the Kano State Government Signage Registration Guidelines via the Kano State Advertising and Signage Agency (KASA).

Permit fees depend on location density and structure type, with urban unipole billboard permits costing up to N3 million, in addition to baseline processing and site inspection levies.

In Bauchi State, the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) accused the State Government of double standards in enforcing restrictions on the placement of campaign materials, saying the party may be forced to seek judicial intervention.

PRP State Chairman, Abdurrahman Yusuf Muazu, said that the ruling Allied Peoples Movement (APM) continues to display its logos, colours and insignia on public facilities despite the government’s earlier directive requiring all political parties to remove billboards, banners and posters from public infrastructure.

The PRP specifically cited the defacement of Kofar Gombe gate, as well as Kofar Nassarawa and Kofar Ran gates, describing the action as an abuse of public infrastructure and a violation of political ethics.

The party expressed concern over what it described as selective enforcement of the directive, arguing that while opposition parties were expected to comply with the order, campaign materials associated with the ruling party had remained in place.

“Such actions,” PRP stated, “undermine fairness, equity and the rule of law, while creating an uneven playing field ahead of future elections. This obnoxious conduct contravenes provisions of Sections 92 to 95 of the Electoral Act, which regulate campaign activities and the use of public resources during elections.”

Further, the party questioned the credibility of the state government’s commitment to conducting free, fair, and transparent local government elections if it could not enforce campaign regulations impartially.

PRP, therefore, called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to intervene, citing Section 151 of the Electoral Act, to ensure fairness and equal opportunities for all political parties in campaign activities.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in a statement by its Publicity Secretary in Abia State, Jude Udeachara, condemned the fees as outrageous, punitive and manifestly anti-democratic.

Udeachara said: “It is a cynical and oppressive revenue scheme apparently designed to frustrate legitimate campaigns, silence political opponents and deny less financially endowed candidates the opportunity to communicate with the Abia electorate.”

While contending that the prohibitive charges raise grave questions about the Otti administration’s understanding of the campaign finance framework established by the Electoral Act 2026, PDP cited Section 92 of the Act, which limits the total election expenditures.

“For a presidential candidate, N10 billion; a governorship candidate, N3 billion; a senatorial candidate, N500 million; a House of Representatives candidate, N250 million; and a State House of Assembly candidate, N100 million.

“A candidate who knowingly exceeds the applicable ceiling commits an offence and may, upon conviction, face a fine, imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both,” the party noted, pointing out that the N20 million demanded from a State House of Assembly candidate represents 20 per cent of the candidate’s entire legally permitted election expenditure of N100 million, for instance.

PDP added: “Assuming, without conceding, that all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory were to replicate Governor Otti’s N200 million charge, a presidential candidate would be required to spend N7.4 billion on permits alone. That would consume 74 per cent of the candidate’s entire N10 billion statutory spending ceiling before paying for the production, mounting or maintenance of a single billboard or undertaking any other campaign activity.”

The party stated that INEC cannot remain indifferent while a state-controlled agency imposes charges that consume substantial portions of the expenditure ceilings candidates are legally required to observe.

“The Commission must engage the Abia State Government, examine the implications of the announced rates and issue appropriate guidance to prevent state institutions from frustrating lawful political campaigns.”

Also, the Abia State Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kalu Kalu, said that if ABSSAA’s law provided for candidates to pay the amounts of money set out in the schedule, the party would pay; but if not, the policy should be cancelled.

Kalu, however, observed that the issue of outdoor advertising permits had been settled by the Supreme Court’s rulings, which held that the Constitution vested responsibility for collecting such fees in local governments.

He said that any law that breached the Electoral Act, which required a party’s presidential candidate to pay N7.2 billion for outdoor advertising alone in 36 states, could not stand.

Similarly, the governorship candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in next year’s election, Doris Ogala, was more vocal.

She insisted that she would not pay the sum, challenging the state authorities to touch her campaign billboards.

“I dare anybody to remove my billboards, then all of us will campaign without billboards in this state,” she said in a viral video, condemning the fees.”

A senatorial candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Enugu State, Ogochukwu Onyema, stressed that the directives are merely intended to distract the opposition.

“These are actions propagated to frighten us. It is the law that we respect. 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. That is the height of whatever anybody could think of doing,” he said.

Similarly, the National Vice Chairman of PDP in the zone, Ray Nnaji, expressed dismay over the development, explaining that certain governments in the region are “desperately” trying to derail the electoral process.

He said: “Look at what some state governors are doing by ensuring that no opposition political party candidate would display a campaign billboard without paying millions of naira. Some have put theirs at up to N150 million. It is dictatorial. It is aimed at preventing opposition candidates from rising.

“There is no level playing field. Some governors don’t allow the opposition to use public facilities. Some parties could not even find venues for their congresses and primaries. Some paid for hotel rooms that were later denied to them. These are our challenges, and they keep coming daily.”

But a Professor of International Law and Global Politics at the University of Kansas Law School in the USA, Jehu Onyekwere Nnaji, believes that INEC should intervene and insist on its rules to protect democracy. He insisted that parties should be provided with a level playing field.

The coming days will define how these developments affect the region’s political atmosphere.

Also, the President of Global Legislative Organisation for Better Environment, Sam Onuigbo, decried the attempt by some state governments to ambush the campaign process in the guise of protecting or preserving the environment, pointing out that any state government that did not establish its Climate Change Governance Framework has no right to legislate against open campaigns.

Onuigbo said the process of erecting policy guidelines must be done properly to ensure that the people are carried along, stressing that nobody should be ambushed from enjoying free access to the people with billboards or other campaign materials.

“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. (The Guardian)

Update news