Barely a week before the official commencement of election campaigns, several state governments have introduced stringent guidelines, fees and levies for the erection of political billboards, posters and other campaign materials.
The measures, which the states say are aimed at regulating outdoor advertising, protecting public infrastructure and maintaining environmental aesthetics, have triggered concerns among opposition parties and political stakeholders, who allege that the charges could restrict political participation and give an advantage to financially stronger candidates.
In some states, campaign permit fees run into hundreds of millions of naira. The development has been particularly contentious in the South-East, where Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu have announced various charges and conditions for political advertising.
Before the election season, billboard advertising across Nigeria generally ranges from about N200,000 to N15 million per month, depending on the location, size and visibility of the billboard. The introduction of charges as high as N200 million for political campaigns has therefore raised questions over affordability and access to the political space.
South-East States Introduce Hefty Campaign Fees
In Abia State, the Abia State Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA) announced a political campaign advertising permit schedule requiring presidential candidates to pay N200 million for campaign materials.
Governorship candidates are expected to pay N150 million, while senatorial candidates would pay N100 million. Candidates contesting seats in the House of Representatives are required to pay N50 million, while State House of Assembly candidates are expected to pay N20 million.
The rates were disclosed during ABSSAA’s 2026 stakeholders’ engagement forum in Aba.
The agency’s Head of Department, Strategy, Innovation and Design, Ndubuisi Nwaogwugwu, said the schedule applied to candidates of all political parties and was based on existing state laws regulating signage and advertising.
He said the political campaign advertising permit fees had been approved by the Abia State Government and would apply throughout the approved campaign period.
The announcement has drawn strong criticism from opposition parties.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), through its Abia State Publicity Secretary, Jude Udeachara, described the charges as “outrageous” and “punitive”, alleging that they could frustrate legitimate campaigns and prevent less financially endowed candidates from reaching voters.
The party also raised concerns over the relationship between the charges and statutory campaign expenditure limits under the Electoral Act.
According to the PDP, presidential candidates are permitted to spend up to N10 billion, governorship candidates N3 billion, senatorial candidates N500 million, House of Representatives candidates N250 million and State House of Assembly candidates N100 million.
The party argued that if a presidential candidate were required to pay N200 million in each of Nigeria’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, the resulting N7.4 billion in permit fees alone would consume a substantial portion of the candidate’s N10 billion spending limit.
The PDP urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to engage with the Abia Government and examine the implications of the charges.
The Abia State Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kalu Kalu, said the party would comply if the fees were backed by valid legislation but argued that any charge inconsistent with existing laws should be withdrawn.
The AAC governorship candidate in the state, Doris Ogala, also rejected the fees, warning that she would not pay the N200 million charge for campaign billboards.
Anambra, Enugu, Ebonyi Set Conditions
In Anambra State, the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA) announced campaign advertising fees ranging from N100,000 to N50 million, depending on the position being contested.
Presidential candidates are required to pay N50 million, while senatorial candidates would pay N20 million. House of Representatives candidates are expected to pay N5 million, House of Assembly candidates N1.5 million, local government chairmanship candidates N2.5 million and councillorship candidates N100,000.
Candidates are also required to obtain permit clearance before erecting billboards, mounting banners or displaying 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 Ebonyi State, authorities have similarly restricted the placement of campaign posters in areas such as public schools, electric poles and flyover bridges. Offenders are reportedly liable to a N5 million fine.
Enugu State has also introduced a N150 million fee for candidates seeking to deploy campaign materials, erect or use billboards, or operate branded campaign vehicles.
The policy is being implemented through the Enugu State Structure for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA), with the government maintaining that the measures are designed to protect the environment, prevent the defacement of public infrastructure and generate revenue.
However, a team of lawyers led by Ben Okolo has approached the court seeking to stop the implementation of the charges.
The lawyers are asking the court to declare the mandatory advertising fees unconstitutional, arguing that the policy could financially exclude opposition candidates and undermine freedom of expression and democratic participation.
A senatorial candidate of the ADC in Enugu State, Ogochukwu Onyema, described the measures as an attempt to intimidate opposition parties.
He said the restrictions on billboards, posters, public gatherings and the use of public infrastructure were designed to distract and frustrate opposition candidates.
PDP National Vice Chairman in the South-East, Ray Nnaji, also accused some governors of deliberately creating obstacles for opposition parties.
According to him, the imposition of multimillion-naira billboard fees and restrictions on the use of public facilities could prevent opposition candidates from competing effectively.
Northern States Also Tighten Regulations
The development is not limited to the South-East.
In Kano State, political billboard charges are regulated through the state’s signage registration guidelines administered by the Kano State Advertising and Signage Agency (KASA).
The fees depend on factors including location density and billboard structure, with urban unipole billboard permits reportedly costing as much as N3 million, alongside processing and site inspection charges.
In Bauchi State, the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) has accused the state government of selectively enforcing restrictions on political campaign materials.
The party’s state chairman, Abdurrahman Yusuf Muazu, alleged that while opposition parties were being directed to remove campaign materials from public infrastructure, materials associated with the ruling Allied Peoples Movement (APM) remained visible on public facilities.
The PRP cited locations including Kofar Gombe, Kofar Nassarawa and Kofar Ran gates, accusing the authorities of failing to apply the rules equally.
The party warned that selective enforcement could undermine fairness and create an uneven playing field ahead of the elections.
It called on INEC to intervene and ensure that all political parties enjoy equal opportunities during the campaign period.
Stakeholders Raise Democracy Concerns
The controversy has sparked a broader debate over whether state governments can impose campaign advertising charges that potentially consume a significant portion of candidates’ legally permitted campaign expenditure.
Professor Jehu Onyekwere Nnaji, a Professor of International Law and Global Politics at the University of Kansas Law School in the United States, called on INEC to intervene and ensure that political parties operate on a level playing field.
Similarly, President of the Global Legislative Organisation for Better Environment, Sam Onuigbo, criticised what he described as attempts by some state governments to “ambush” the campaign process under the guise of environmental protection.
Onuigbo argued that environmental and campaign-related regulations should be developed transparently and with adequate consultation.
He maintained that restrictions on campaign materials should not be used to prevent candidates from accessing voters or communicating their policies.
With the elections only months away, political parties and stakeholders are expected to intensify their opposition to regulations they consider excessive, while state authorities are likely to defend the measures as necessary for environmental management, orderly advertising and revenue generation.
The dispute could ultimately be determined by the courts and electoral authorities, particularly if opposition parties continue to challenge the legality and practical implications of the new campaign fees.
Comments