PDP’S SELECTIVE OUTRAGE CANNOT ERASE ITS RECORD OF POLITICAL INTOLERANCE IN ABIA
The press release issued by the Abia State Peoples Democratic Party over the campaign advertising permit fees announced by the Abia State Structures for Signage and Advertising Agency is long on inflammatory language but remarkably short on historical honesty, sound legal interpretation and institutional memory.
The PDP describes the policy as “extortion,” “oppression,” “political exclusion” and an attack on democracy. Yet this is the same political establishment under whose government Dr Alex Otti’s campaign reportedly paid the prescribed ₦10 million signage fee, complied with the relevant advertising requirements and still had its campaign billboard removed.
Before accusing Governor Alex Otti of attempting to suppress opposition campaigns, the Abia PDP should explain its conduct when it controlled the government and Alex Otti was an opposition candidate.
In September 2022, the Labour Party stated that it paid the ₦10 million campaign advertising charge imposed by the PDP-controlled Abia State Government. It also maintained that the licensed outdoor advertising vendors engaged by the campaign paid the relevant charges required by the Abia State Signage and Advertisement Agency.
Despite those payments, the party’s major campaign billboard at Umuikaa Junction, along the Aba–Port Harcourt Expressway, was reportedly removed by agents of the government.
This was not an allegation invented after the election. The Guardian reported the incident on September 15, 2022, under the headline, “Abia LP accuses government of removing campaign billboards despite making prescribed payments.” The newspaper reported the Labour Party’s position that it had adhered to the agency’s guidelines and paid the prescribed ₦10 million to the state government.
Reference: The Guardian, September 15, 2022:
THISDAY also reported the controversy on September 14, 2022, under the headline, “Otti Cries out over Destruction of Billboard after Paying N10m to Abia Govt.” The report recorded the campaign organisation’s claim that both it and the licensed vendors had fulfilled their financial obligations before the billboard was removed.
Reference: THISDAY, September 14, 2022:
Even more importantly, the payment was not merely asserted by the Otti campaign. In a subsequent response reported by The Guardian, the signage agency acknowledged that Alex Otti had paid the ₦10 million permit charge, although it raised separate objections relating to the vendor, billboard positioning and campaign message.
Reference: The Guardian, September 19, 2022:
Further reports in December 2022 alleged that another prominent billboard bearing the message, “Ndi Abia Weep No More, Help Is on the Way,” was pulled down and that an official of the Otti campaign was arrested and detained.
Reference: New Dawn Nigeria, December 3, 2022:
These documented events expose the hypocrisy of the present PDP statement. The party cannot credibly proclaim that “Abia belongs to all Abians” without explaining why a compliant opposition candidate who reportedly paid the prescribed fee was still prevented from freely displaying his campaign message under a PDP government.
The current ABSSAA policy is fundamentally different. The agency announced a general schedule applying to candidates across all political parties: ₦200 million for presidential candidates, ₦150 million for governorship candidates, ₦100 million for senatorial candidates, ₦50 million for House of Representatives candidates and ₦20 million for State House of Assembly candidates.
The agency stated that the permit schedule would operate throughout the approved election campaign period and apply to political candidates at every level in Abia State. It further explained that the policy was founded on the state laws regulating signage and advertising.
Reference: Vanguard, July 30, 2026:
The PDP may disagree with the amounts, but disagreement does not transform a publicly announced and generally applicable regulatory fee into evidence of political persecution. To establish discrimination, the party must demonstrate that the government has imposed different charges on different parties, denied permits to candidates who complied or selectively removed approved opposition materials.
It has presented no such evidence.
The press release repeatedly calls the charges “extortionate,” but it does not allege that PDP candidates are required to pay more than candidates belonging to the Labour Party, APC or any other political platform. It has also not alleged that Governor Otti or candidates aligned with him have been granted secret exemptions under the policy.
What the PDP has criticised is the published amount, not unequal application. A dispute over the reasonableness of a regulatory charge is not automatically proof of an attempt to destroy democracy.
The PDP’s reliance on the Electoral Act 2026 is also legally exaggerated. It claims that the charges expose the Otti administration’s “ignorance” of the Act, yet it has failed to identify any provision of the legislation that expressly prohibits a state signage authority from charging for the regulation of outdoor political advertising.
The Electoral Act 2026 does establish ceilings for candidates’ total election expenditure. Section 92 provides limits of ₦10 billion for a presidential candidate, ₦3 billion for a governorship candidate, ₦500 million for a senatorial candidate, ₦250 million for a House of Representatives candidate and ₦100 million for a State House of Assembly candidate.
Reference: Independent National Electoral Commission, Electoral Act 2026:
However, the existence of a campaign expenditure ceiling does not, by itself, make every statutory fee, party charge, media expense, advertising cost, venue charge or logistical expenditure unlawful. It means that candidates must manage their total campaign expenditure within the limits prescribed by law and submit the necessary returns.
The PDP has therefore confused two separate legal questions. The first is whether a candidate must remain within the expenditure ceiling established by the Electoral Act. The second is whether a state advertising regulator may impose fees for the use and regulation of outdoor campaign structures.
The fact that expenditure on a permit may count towards a candidate’s overall campaign expenses does not automatically invalidate the permit. If that reasoning were accepted, every payment for television advertisements, radio airtime, campaign offices, vehicles, rallies, consultants, printing, security, transportation and nomination forms could equally be described as unlawful merely because it consumes part of a candidate’s expenditure limit.
That is plainly not what the Electoral Act provides.
The PDP’s calculations showing that ₦20 million represents 20 per cent of the State House of Assembly ceiling, or that ₦100 million represents 20 per cent of the senatorial ceiling, may support its political argument that the fees are substantial. They do not prove that the fees breach the Electoral Act.
A percentage calculation is not a legal prohibition.
The party’s most dramatic argument—that a presidential candidate would spend ₦7.4 billion if every state and the Federal Capital Territory imposed a ₦200 million permit—is also hypothetical and misleading. The issue under consideration is an Abia State permit. Abia does not determine the rates charged by the other 35 states or the Federal Capital Territory.
Governor Otti cannot be condemned on the basis of an imaginary nationwide policy that his administration did not enact and has no authority to impose.
The PDP has simply multiplied Abia’s figure by 37 and presented the product as though it were an actual financial demand already made against presidential candidates across Nigeria. This is political theatre, not legal analysis.
The weakness of this argument becomes clearer when one considers that other states have also announced substantial political advertising permit regimes. In February 2026, Enugu State reportedly fixed its political campaign advertising permit at ₦150 million, explaining that the measure was intended to maintain professional standards, prevent visual pollution, protect public infrastructure and promote orderly outdoor advertising.
Reference: TheCable, February 23, 2026:
In June 2026, Anambra State also announced political advertising permit fees for candidates ahead of the 2027 elections.
Reference: Voice of Nigeria, June 3, 2026:
These examples do not mean that every amount announced by a state must automatically be accepted without discussion. They demonstrate, however, that the regulation of campaign advertising by state agencies is not an invention peculiar to Governor Otti, nor is it proof that the Abia Government is ignorant of electoral law.
The PDP has also called on INEC to intervene, but it has not shown that INEC is the licensing authority for physical billboard structures or outdoor advertising spaces in Abia State. INEC regulates elections, political parties, campaign conduct and election expenditure under the Electoral Act. State signage agencies regulate the placement, safety, environmental impact and commercial use of outdoor advertising structures under applicable state laws.
The existence of INEC’s authority over elections does not automatically extinguish the regulatory functions of state agencies in areas such as planning, environmental protection, public infrastructure and outdoor advertising.
Where the PDP believes that a state regulation is unlawful, unreasonable or unconstitutional, it may challenge it before a court of competent jurisdiction. That is precisely what the judicial process is designed to determine. Issuing a politically charged press release and declaring the policy illegal does not amount to a judicial pronouncement.
The PDP cannot make itself complainant, interpreter and court in the same matter.
Its claim that the charges are intended to compel opposition candidates to breach their expenditure ceilings is equally unsupported. Every candidate is responsible for deciding which lawful campaign channels to use and how to distribute expenditure among them. Outdoor billboards are only one means of political communication.
Candidates may communicate through radio, television, newspapers, town hall meetings, community visits, rallies, direct voter engagement, social media and other lawful platforms. No provision of the Electoral Act guarantees every candidate unlimited use of outdoor advertising structures at a price determined solely by the candidate.
Neither does every candidate need to purchase every category of advertising available. Political campaigns are exercises in strategy, prioritisation and resource allocation. The fact that a campaign may decide that a particular advertising option is too expensive does not amount to the suppression of political expression.
The PDP’s description of public advertising spaces as though they belong freely and automatically to political parties is also misleading. Many billboard structures belong to private advertising companies. Other locations are subject to planning, traffic, safety and environmental restrictions. Candidates ordinarily pay for production, rental, mounting and maintenance in addition to complying with regulatory requirements.
Political status does not convert commercial billboard structures into free public property.
There is also a deep irony in the PDP’s sudden concern for candidates “of modest means.” Nigerian political parties, including the PDP, routinely impose nomination and expression-of-interest fees on aspirants seeking to contest internal party primaries. Those charges also form part of the financial barriers confronting potential candidates.
A party that genuinely opposes the commercialisation of politics should disclose its nomination charges, explain how they were calculated and show what steps it has taken to make its own tickets accessible to ordinary citizens.
The PDP cannot condemn every government permit as an attack on democracy while treating its own internal nomination charges as legitimate political administration.
Most importantly, the party must not be permitted to rewrite Abia’s recent history. It alleges that Governor Otti is attempting to shrink the democratic space, yet Alex Otti was himself a victim of a far more direct form of political obstruction under the PDP administration.
He paid the prescribed charge. His campaign said its vendors complied. His billboard was nevertheless removed. National newspapers documented the controversy.
That was not a theoretical calculation about what might happen if 37 jurisdictions adopted identical fees. It was an actual dispute involving an opposition candidate, an actual payment and an actual campaign billboard that was removed.
Where was the present PDP leadership then?
Where was its defence of fair political participation?
Where was its warning that Abia did not belong to the governor of the day?
Where was its declaration that a state agency should not become an instrument for obstructing opposition candidates?
Where was its appeal to INEC, the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society organisations and election-monitoring groups?
Those who remained silent when state power was allegedly used against Alex Otti cannot suddenly claim exclusive ownership of democratic principles because they are now in opposition.
Political consistency matters.
If the PDP genuinely believes that signage regulation should be reasonable and fairly administered, it should begin by acknowledging what happened to Otti’s campaign in 2022 and apologising for the conduct of the administration it supported.
Instead, the party has chosen selective memory.
It speaks about a level playing field without admitting that Alex Otti was denied one under its own government. It condemns financial barriers without acknowledging that Otti paid the fee demanded from him and still faced obstruction. It warns against using a state agency as a political weapon without addressing the documented conduct of the signage agency during the PDP era.
The Otti administration has published one schedule for all candidates. The PDP has not shown that its members will pay more than other candidates. It has not shown that approved PDP campaign materials have been pulled down after compliance. It has not shown that the government has exempted its preferred candidates. It has not produced evidence of selective enforcement.
What it has offered is speculation dressed as certainty.
Governor Alex Otti’s experience as an opposition candidate places him in a unique position to appreciate the importance of a transparent and orderly political environment. His administration has made its requirements public before the commencement of the main campaign season, allowing parties and candidates to plan accordingly.
That is substantially different from accepting payment from an opposition campaign and subsequently removing its advertisement.
The PDP may challenge the amount through consultation, lawful administrative procedures or the courts. It is entitled to advocate a different regulatory structure. What it cannot honestly do is present itself as an innocent defender of political freedom while concealing its own record.
The allegation that Abia’s political space is being “auctioned to the highest bidder” is therefore another piece of political exaggeration. A regulatory permit does not purchase votes, determine ballot access, prevent candidate nomination or stop political parties from campaigning through alternative platforms.
The people of Abia will still decide the election.
No amount of outdoor advertising can substitute for performance, credibility and public confidence. The old political establishment understands this reality. Its greatest problem is not the cost of billboards; it is the visible record of Governor Alex Otti’s administration and the inability of those who previously governed Abia to persuade the people that the state should return to the past.
The PDP’s anger cannot erase the rebuilding of Port Harcourt Road. It cannot erase the reconstruction of schools and health facilities. It cannot erase regular salary payments, improved sanitation, institutional reforms and the restoration of public confidence.
That is the real contest before Abians—not a contest over who can display the largest number of posters, but a choice between a government producing visible results and a political establishment attempting to return through selective history and manufactured outrage.
The PDP should therefore remove the mask of victimhood and confront its own record. It should explain why Alex Otti’s billboard was removed after the payment of ₦10 million. It should tell Abians what it did to guarantee fair treatment for opposition candidates when it held power.
Until those questions are answered, its present declarations about political equality will remain hollow.
The only political party in this controversy with a documented history of presiding over the removal of a compliant opposition candidate’s billboard is the Abia PDP.
That fact cannot be buried beneath insults, hypothetical calculations or a distorted interpretation of the Electoral Act.
Governor Alex Otti’s administration has announced a general campaign advertising framework. It has stated that the policy applies to all political parties. Those who comply are entitled to expect equal treatment, and the government must enforce the rules consistently.
That is regulation.
What the PDP allegedly did to Otti after collecting the prescribed fee was obstruction.
The two situations are not the same, and Abians must reject every attempt to rewrite their political history.
REFERENCES
Independent National Electoral Commission. Electoral Act 2026.
The Guardian, September 15, 2022. “Abia LP accuses government of removing campaign billboards despite making prescribed payments.”
The Guardian, September 19, 2022. “Abia signage agency faults multiple candidates in campaign billboards, posters.”
THISDAY, September 14, 2022. “Otti Cries out over Destruction of Billboard after Paying N10m to Abia Govt.”
New Dawn Nigeria, December 3, 2022. “Abia pulls down Otti’s billboard, arrests director.”
Vanguard, July 30, 2026. “Abia Govt fixes N200m for presidential campaign billboard permit.”
TheCable, February 23, 2026. “Enugu pegs advertising permit fee for political campaigns at N150m.”
Voice of Nigeria, June 3, 2026. “Anambra sets campaign permit fees ahead of 2027 elections.”
