As political parties intensify preparations for the 2027 general elections, a new battleground is emerging over the cost of campaign visibility, with several states imposing multimillion-naira permits for outdoor advertising.
The fees have triggered protests from opposition parties and civil society groups, who argue that the charges could make political advertising inaccessible to less-financed candidates.
State authorities, however, maintain that the charges are regulatory fees designed to control outdoor advertising, protect public infrastructure and prevent visual pollution.
The controversy is particularly pronounced in Abia, Enugu and Imo states, where new fee structures have attracted public attention.
Abia’s N200m Billboard Permit
In Abia, the State Structure for Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA) announced in July that presidential candidates would pay N200 million for campaign advertising permits.
Governorship candidates were assigned N150 million, senatorial candidates N100 million, House of Representatives candidates N50 million and State Assembly candidates N20 million.
Civil society group CEHRAWS subsequently called for a downward review, arguing that the charges could constitute a financial barrier to political participation.
ABSSAA, however, has defended its regulatory role and indicated that campaign structures that do not comply with its requirements could be removed.
Enugu’s N150m Controversy
In Enugu, the State Structures for Signage and . Agency (ENSSAA) introduced a N150 million campaign permit covering political parties and candidates participating in the 2026 and 2027 elections.
READ ALSO; 2027: PACAN counsels candidates focus on policy-driven campaigns
The permit covers outdoor and visual campaign activities, including banners, branded vehicles, T-shirts, handbills, rallies and street campaigns. ENSSAA said the policy is intended to promote orderliness, environmental aesthetics and lawful campaigning across the state’s 17 local government areas.
The agency has also said the requirement applies uniformly to political parties and candidates, including incumbents.
Opposition voices have challenged the fee, with the African Democratic Congress describing it as excessive and alleging that it could restrict political participation.
Imo Also Sets Charges
In Imo, the controversy has taken a different form, with the state signage agency prescribing different charges according to the office being contested.
A 2026 schedule reported by New Telegraph puts the total specified signage-related charge for a governorship candidate at N55.25 million, comprising application, inspection and advertising fees. Other elective positions also attract multimillion-naira charges.
Where Regulation Meets Electoral Law
The central legal question is whether state-level advertising regulation can impose financial requirements that significantly affect campaign access.
Section 95 of the Electoral Act 2022 provides that state apparatus, including the media, should not be employed to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate.
Critics argue that excessive signage charges could raise concerns under that provision, while state authorities maintain that signage regulation falls within their administrative and environmental responsibilities.
The issue is further complicated by campaign-spending limits under Nigeria’s electoral framework. A candidate’s expenditure on advertising permits, however, cannot automatically be treated as unlawful merely because the fee is high; the legal classification of such payments and their relationship with statutory campaign ceilings would ultimately depend on the applicable law and its interpretation.
A Growing Electoral-Finance Question
The dispute therefore extends beyond the price of billboards. It raises questions about how governments can regulate public advertising spaces without creating unequal practical access to campaign platforms.
With the 2027 elections approaching, the courts, INEC and other relevant institutions may face increasing pressure to clarify the boundary between legitimate outdoor-advertising regulation and measures that could affect political participation.
For now, the competing positions remain clear: state agencies describe the charges as regulatory measures, while critics contend that their scale could impose substantial financial barriers on candidates seeking visibility.
The extent to which those fees comply with Nigeria’s electoral and constitutional framework remains a matter for legal and institutional determination.