₦airaland Forum

Contrary to false and misleading reports on social media that a Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in Abuja had nullified the N150 million fee prescribed by the Enugu State Structures for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA) for political campaign billboards, findings have revealed that the court actually ruled in favour of the agency, upholding its powers to prescribe the fee.

According to a certified true copy (CTC) of a judgment of FHC sitting in Enugu, the court had on September 1, 2026, dismissed a suit by opposition parties and figures challenging ENSSAA’s authority to impose a mandatory N150 million fee on each political party seeking to erect campaign billboards or display posters ahead of the 2027 general election.

The judgment rendered by Justice Mabel Segun-Bello held that it was within the legislative competence of the Enugu State House of Assembly to make laws on outdoor advertising and for ENSSAA to exercise powers donated to it by state law.

The suit marked FHC/EN/CS/165/2026 had the Labour Party; Chairman of the Labour Party (LP) in Enugu, Hon. Kingsley Ugwu; Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC); NDC factional state Chairman, Engr. Ibuchukwu Obetta; the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its state Chairman, Hon. Magnus Ezea, as plaintiffs, while ENSSAA; its General Manager, Mr. Francis Aninwike; the Enugu State House of Assembly; Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON); and Nigeria Police Force were the respondents or defendants.

The plaintiffs had in June 2026 approached the court seeking a declaration that, by virtue of Sections 99 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution, which donated exclusive powers to INEC to regulate electoral campaigns of political parties in Nigeria, it was ultra vires the powers of ENSSAA and its General Manager to make executive decisions and publications imposing a mandatory payment of N150 million by political parties and their candidates in the state as an advertisement permit fee for the placement of billboards for the council election and the 2027 election.

They equally sought a declaration by the court that it was unlawful and ultra vires the legislative powers of the Enugu State House of Assembly to make laws regulating the advertisement of political campaigns in the state.

Consequently, the plaintiffs sought an order of the court setting aside the mandatory N150 million fee, as well as an injunction restraining the agency and its GM, the Enugu State Government, its agents and representatives from enforcing ENSSAA’s executive directive.

They finally sought an order of the court mandating the Nigeria Police Force to protect political parties in Enugu State against possible harassment for the placement of billboards and posters for the council election and the 2027 elections.

However, delivering her judgment in September, after a careful consideration of the totality of the affidavit evidence, the exhibits, and submissions by both parties, the presiding judge, Justice Mabel Segun-Bello, held, among other things, that the National Assembly does not hold exclusive legislative powers over outdoor advertising.

“I accede to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants' contention that the subject matter of ‘outdoor advertising’ is NOT reserved exclusively to the National Assembly or to ARCON.

“Rather, ‘outdoor advertising’ falls within the purview of the primary functions of the Local Government, which may (where properly delegated) be validly exercised by a State agency such as the 1st Defendant (ENSSAA).

“Third, I am satisfied that on the basis of the evidence before this Court, the 1st Defendant has established it had a validly delegated authority to issue the directive it gave on 9th February, 2026, for the regulation of advertisement of political campaigns,” she stated.

Guided by these foregoing conclusions, Justice Segun-Bello held that “it is not ultra vires the powers of the Enugu State Structures for Signage and Advertisement Agency and its General Manager (1st and 2nd Defendants) to pass executive decisions and publications imposing a mandatory payment of N150 million naira, as advertising permit that will enable the use of billboards in Enugu State.”

Continuing, she said, “It is also hereby declared that it is not ultra vires the legislative powers of the Enugu State House of Assembly (3rd Defendant) to make laws regulating advertisement in Enugu State.

“Consequently, the directive published by the 1st and 2nd Defendants on 9th February, 2026, mandating political parties and their candidates in Enugu State to pay N150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) as a pre-condition for obtaining an advertising permit to place billboards and posters for the 2026 and 2027 general election campaigns, is not an unlawful use of State Apparatus to the disadvantage of political parties, contrary to Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“Save as expressly granted above, the remaining reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs are hereby refused.”

Meanwhile, the Enugu State Government says that unlike the practice in most states, the N150 million fee is for each political party, not for candidates, as misrepresented on social media and by some commentators.

The Secretary to the State Government, Prof. Chidiebere Onyia, made the clarification recently while fielding questions from Government House correspondents in Enugu, adding that there was no court judgment on the fee by any FHC in Abuja, as falsely circulated.

In a related development, finding show that the Abia State Structures for Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA) prescribed feea for candidates ranging from N20 million for State House of Assembly candidates to N200 million for presidential candidates.

Imo State fees range from N3.55 million for each House of Representatives candidate to N55 million for each governorship candidate, while the permit fees range from N300,000 for local council candidates to N150 million for presidential candidates.

The campaign permit fee ranges from N100,000 for each councillorship candidate to N50 million for each presidential candidate, while Kwara State fixed its fees at N2 million for each House of Assembly candidate and N100 million for presidential candidates.

jojo1415:
This is share wickedness all because APC don't want opposition parties to be known.

Cherrybae:
But Alex Otti is doing same in Abia state.

Obedient hailed him but for Enugu is wickedness.

Una hypocrisy no be here oooo

NaijaHelper1:
This is plain ridiculous unless the plaintiffs brought the wrong questions for determination before the court. To my mind, the question before the Court should be whether the imposition of excessive advert fees undermines the people's constitutionally protected right to choose their leaders. High fees is essentially a denial of the right to advertise. Prospective leaders who cannot advertise cannot be seen and the people lose options which contravenes the guaranteed rights of the people to choose their leaders. You cannot choose a leader you didn't know was contesting.

Also, they should have sought evidence under the FOI Act showing that the ruling party in the state paid the sums too because I'm almost 100% sure they most likely didn't. If the ruling party does not pay, then there is stronger evidence of bias and attempt to undermine the right of the people to choose.

tuoyoojo:
I really don't see the need for spend so much on billboards

He decided he would vote for a candidate just because he saw his billboard

Campaigning has changed so much with the emergency of social media

The campaign can be taken to the homes of everyone via their smart fones

Every tom dick and Harry has a smart fone and as long as they are on Facebook or tiktok, they would have seen the campaign reels of their candidates

chicfarmer:
$100,000 for political billboard. Apc na evil political party.

SmartMaster001:
Awon Ole..Dey just want to discourage the oppositions.

NaijaHelper1:
This is plain ridiculous unless the plaintiffs brought the wrong questions for determination before the court. To my mind, the question before the Court should be whether the imposition of excessive advert fees undermines the people's constitutionally protected right to choose their leaders. High fees is essentially a denial of the right to advertise. Prospective leaders who cannot advertise cannot be seen and the people lose options which contravenes the guaranteed rights of the people to choose their leaders. You cannot choose a leader you didn't know was contesting.

Also, they should have sought evidence under the FOI Act showing that the ruling party in the state paid the sums too because I'm almost 100% sure they most likely didn't. If the ruling party does not pay, then there is stronger evidence of bias and attempt to undermine the right of the people to choose.

davillian:
But how many social media users would come out and vote?

lezz:
you know book.

The lawyers weren't asking the right questions. A High advertisement fee solely targeting political parties is tantamount to denial of political freedom and liberty especially when such fees are not demanded from any other non-political actors

tuoyoojo:
I really don't see the need for spend so much on billboards

Who decides he would vote for a candidate just because he saw his billboard

Campaigning has changed so much with the emergency of social media

The campaign can be taken to the homes of everyone via their smart fones

Every tom dick and Harry has a smart fone and as long as they are on Facebook or tiktok, they would have seen the campaign reels of their candidates

okeke6969:
Tell Tinubu that Billboards doesn't win election. Instead it is engraved in our heart's.
Letchim monopolise ii with money. No wahala.