By Kachi Okezie, Esq
The 2027 presidential race may have found its first major constitutional battleground: not in Abuja, but in Abia State.
Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) have reportedly taken Abia State Governor Alex Otti to court over an alleged ₦200 million fee imposed as a condition for displaying presidential campaign materials in the state. What appears to be a dispute over money raises a much bigger question: can a state government impose a financial barrier on political participation in a federal election?
The issue goes beyond Abia. If a state can demand ₦200 million before a presidential candidate can display campaign materials in Aba or Umuahia, what prevents another state from imposing an even higher fee? The danger is a political system in which access to voters depends less on ideas and public support than on the depth of a candidate’s pockets.
At the heart of the dispute are fundamental constitutional guarantees. Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, protects freedom of expression, including the right to impart ideas and information. Political campaigning is a vital expression of that freedom. Sections 40 and 42, concerning freedom of association and protection against specified forms of discrimination, also raise important questions about whether financial barriers could restrict political participation or disadvantage candidates with fewer resources.
The Constitution establishes the qualifications for election as President under Section 131, alongside the disqualifications in Section 137. A state government cannot simply invent additional constitutional qualifications. Section 1(3) further provides that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of that inconsistency. The court must therefore determine whether the alleged fee is a legitimate regulatory charge or an unlawful restriction on participation in a federally regulated electoral process.
Supreme Court precedents provide important context. In *INEC v Musa* (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72, the court addressed the limits of INEC’s authority to impose conditions beyond those prescribed by the Constitution. The case reinforces the principle that public authorities cannot exceed their lawful powers by introducing additional barriers to political participation.
In *Attorney-General of Ogun State v Aberuagba* (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 395, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between federal and state legislative powers and the covering-the-field doctrine. Where valid federal legislation covers a matter, inconsistent state legislation may be invalid under Section 4(5). Whether that principle applies to Abia’s alleged fee will depend on the precise nature of the measure and its relationship with federal electoral legislation.
Similarly, *Attorney-General of Lagos State v Eko Hotels* (2017) LPELR-43713(SC) examined overlapping federal and state taxation. Its relevance here turns on a crucial question: is the alleged ₦200 million payment a tax, a charge for using public property, a fee for a particular service or a condition imposed on political campaigning? Those distinctions matter. The existence of other campaign-related charges does not, by itself, establish unlawful double taxation.
The questions facing Otti’s government are therefore straightforward but consequential. What law authorises the alleged fee? What exactly does it cover? Does it apply equally to political parties and candidates? Is it proportionate to a legitimate regulatory purpose, and does it conflict with constitutional rights or federal electoral legislation?
If the fee is found to be unlawful, the implications could extend far beyond Abia. Presidential candidates should not face a patchwork of arbitrary financial barriers across the federation. Yet the Constitution does not eliminate every legitimate state power to regulate public spaces or outdoor advertising. The court must establish where lawful regulation ends and unconstitutional interference begins.
The political identities of the parties—Makinde of the PDP, the APM and Otti of the Labour Party—make the dispute particularly striking, but the constitutional question transcends party lines. It concerns the limits of government power and the conditions under which Nigerians can participate in choosing their president.
The Constitution does not guarantee candidates unrestricted access to every billboard or public space. It does, however, protect political expression and participation within the law. The central question is whether Abia’s alleged ₦200 million fee is a lawful regulatory charge or an impermissible price placed on participation in a national democratic contest.
Democracy must be governed by the Constitution, not by financial barriers the law did not authorise.
