PDP Petitions INEC Over Abia’s N200m Campaign Advertising Fee, Calls Policy ‘Political Extortion’

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Abia State has called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to intervene over what it described as “outrageous” campaign advertising charges introduced by the Abia State Structures for Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA).

The party’s reaction follows the Abia State Government’s announcement that presidential candidates seeking to campaign in the state would pay N200 million for outdoor advertising permits ahead of the 2027 elections. Governorship candidates are expected to pay N150 million, senatorial candidates N100 million, House of Representatives candidates N50 million, while House of Assembly candidates will pay N20 million.

The fees, unveiled at a stakeholders’ forum in Aba, were described by the state government as non-negotiable and applicable to all political parties. According to the government, the charges are aimed at regulating outdoor advertising, promoting public safety, and ensuring equal access to campaign advertising spaces.

However, in a statement issued by its State Publicity Secretary, Jude Udeachara, the PDP condemned the policy, accusing the administration of Governor Alex Otti of introducing measures capable of frustrating political participation ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The opposition party described the charges as “punitive,” “anti-democratic,” and “political extortion dressed in administrative language.”

“This is not regulation. It is political extortion dressed in administrative language.”

The party further alleged that the policy was designed to frustrate legitimate campaigns, suppress opposition voices, and prevent candidates with limited financial resources from reaching voters.

“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.”

The PDP argued that the fees conflict with the campaign finance limits provided under the Electoral Act 2026. It noted that the N20 million permit fee for House of Assembly candidates represents 20 percent of the N100 million maximum election expenditure allowed by law. It also stated that the N50 million and N100 million fees for House of Representatives and senatorial candidates respectively amount to 20 percent of their statutory spending limits.

According to the party, although the N150 million charge for governorship candidates accounts for about five percent of the N3 billion campaign spending ceiling, candidates would still bear additional costs for producing, erecting, and maintaining campaign materials.

The PDP also argued that if every state and the Federal Capital Territory adopted a similar N200 million permit fee for presidential candidates, such candidates would spend about N7.4 billion on advertising permits alone, representing roughly 74 percent of the N10 billion maximum campaign expenditure permitted by law.

“This exposes the absurdity, recklessness and anti-democratic character of the Alex Otti administration’s policy.”

The party questioned whether the state government intended to compel opposition candidates to exceed the spending limits prescribed by law or had failed to consider the implications of the Electoral Act.

It further accused the Abia State Government of using signage regulation as a means of restricting opposition political activities and called on INEC to engage the state government on the issue.

“We therefore call on the Independent National Electoral Commission to take immediate notice of this dangerous development and caution Governor Alex Otti and the Abia State Government against policies capable of undermining a level playing field ahead of the 2027 elections.”

The PDP also urged civil society organisations, election observers, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), and the media to resist what it described as an attempt to “monetise political expression.”

The party demanded the immediate withdrawal of the advertising charges, insisting that regulatory fees should reflect only the administrative cost of regulation rather than being used as a tool for political exclusion.