2027 Campaigns: Billboard Fees Squeeze Political Parties

Nigeria’s 2027 election campaign has barely begun, but a fresh battle is already unfolding over one of the most visible tools of political communication: billboards.

As presidential and National Assembly campaigns officially commenced on Wednesday, August 19, candidates and political parties entered a contest not only for votes but also for visibility. Rallies, road shows, posters, flyers, jingles, television and radio advertisements, social media campaigns and other forms of political messaging are expected to dominate the country’s public space in the months ahead.

Yet, for candidates hoping to rely on billboards to put their faces and messages before voters, the cost of visibility has become a major concern.

Several state and local governments have introduced or announced permit charges running into tens and, in some cases, hundreds of millions of naira for political advertising. Opposition parties and political analysts have questioned both the scale and timing of the fees, arguing that the charges could make it difficult for less wealthy candidates to compete with incumbents and better-funded parties.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has so far cleared 19 presidential candidates for the January 2027 election. With the campaign season now underway, the dispute over signage fees has added another financial hurdle to an already expensive electoral process.

The fees vary sharply from one state to another. In some jurisdictions, authorities insist the charges are intended to regulate outdoor advertising, protect the environment, prevent indiscriminate placement of campaign materials and raise internally generated revenue. Critics, however, suspect that excessively high charges could be used to restrict opposition parties and candidates from gaining access to prominent advertising locations.

From posters to billboards

The importance of outdoor advertising in Nigerian politics is not new.

Even before the formal opening of the 2027 campaign season, towns and villages across the country had already begun to experience the familiar signs of an approaching election. Posters and billboards bearing the images of aspirants appeared in strategic locations during party primaries and other political activities.

Billboards remain particularly attractive to politicians because, unlike radio jingles or social media advertisements that disappear after a short period, they can remain in prominent locations for weeks or months. Their visibility also allows candidates to repeatedly expose voters to their names, photographs, slogans and campaign messages.

A public relations expert and mass communication lecturer, Balarabe Sa’ad, said politicians continued to favour billboards because of their strategic advantage, even as the media environment changes.

He noted that radio listenership was declining in some areas, while television and digital platforms also faced limitations, particularly among poorer Nigerians concerned about the cost of mobile data.

According to him, political messages delivered through jingles could sometimes have greater impact than static campaign images because lyrics can remain with audiences longer.

Another analyst observed that posters and flyers could disappear quickly, while properly positioned billboards could remain visible for extended periods unless deliberately removed.

That durability and strategic positioning have made billboards one of the preferred instruments for political campaigns.

Rivers puts presidential billboard fee at N75m

In Rivers State, presidential candidates are expected to pay N75 million for billboard placement, while governorship candidates face a N50 million charge.

A source at the Office of the Special Adviser on Political Affairs to the governor said the charges were designed partly to curb the indiscriminate erection of billboards in Port Harcourt, the state capital.

The situation varies within the state.

In Abua/Odual Local Government Area, a 2026 political campaign outdoor advertising and signage by-law approved by the local council establishes a mandatory permit system for political campaign materials.

The by-law provides for N75 million for presidential campaigns, N50 million for governorship campaigns, N30 million for senatorial candidates, N20 million for House of Representatives candidates, N15 million for chairmanship candidates, N10 million for State House of Assembly candidates and N1 million for councillorship candidates.

The local government said the measure was intended to stop indiscriminate posting, pasting, mounting and display of campaign posters, banners, billboards, signages and hoardings.

It also cited public safety, environmental cleanliness, orderliness and the protection of public and private property as reasons for establishing the permit regime.

Kogi demands N150m from presidential candidates

Kogi State has adopted one of the highest rates announced so far.

The state government approved the fees on August 11 as part of measures to regulate political advertising, enforce existing signage regulations and generate revenue.

Under the approved structure, presidential candidates are required to pay N150 million. Senatorial candidates will pay N50 million, House of Representatives candidates N30 million and State House of Assembly candidates N5 million.

For local government elections, chairmanship candidates are expected to pay N2 million, while councillorship candidates will pay N300,000.

Kogi Commissioner for Information and Communication, Kingsley Fanwo, said the charges apply to billboards, posters, branded T-shirts, caps and other campaign materials.

The government also warned that anyone who places campaign materials without paying the prescribed fees or complying with the relevant regulations could face prosecution.

The General Manager of the Kogi State Signage and Advertisement Agency, Richard Osaseyi, said enforcement would begin fully and urged political parties, candidates, campaign organisations and billboard operators to register with the agency and secure the necessary approvals before displaying campaign materials.

The policy has already drawn opposition from the Peoples Democratic Party in the state.

PDP chairman Mohammed Gambo described the charges as excessive and potentially capable of shutting out opposition candidates.

He argued that governments could regulate commercial signage and advertising infrastructure but should not create financial obstacles that make it difficult for citizens and political parties to communicate their political ideas.

“Elections are contests of ideas, service and the will of the people. Government’s regulation must never become a financial barrier capable of determining who can effectively communicate with the electorate.”

Gambo also cited Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression and peaceful association, including political association.

He called for the fees to be reviewed and urged the government to consult registered political parties and other stakeholders on a more reasonable framework.

Abia charges N200m

Abia State has set an even higher fee for presidential campaign billboards.

Presidential candidates are expected to pay N200 million, while governorship candidates will pay N150 million.

The rate for senatorial candidates is N100 million, House of Representatives candidates will pay N50 million and State House of Assembly candidates will pay N20 million.

The charges have intensified concerns among opposition politicians who argue that such sums could make outdoor political communication available only to the wealthiest candidates.

Anambra fixes N50m for presidential campaigns

Anambra State has also introduced a permit regime through the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency.

The approved rate is N50 million for presidential candidates and N20 million for senatorial candidates. House of Representatives candidates will pay N5 million, while State House of Assembly candidates will pay N1.5 million.

For local government contests, chairmanship candidates are required to pay N2.5 million and councillorship candidates N100,000.

The agency said the permits cover a broad range of outdoor campaign activities, including posters, banners, branded vehicles, public address systems, flyers, buntings, T-shirts, caps, campaign booths, rallies and street campaigns.

ANSAA said the regulations were introduced to maintain environmental aesthetics, prevent visual pollution, protect public infrastructure and ensure orderly campaign activities.

It also warned parties and candidates against posting materials on public buildings, bridges, flyovers, drainage channels, road signs, schools, hospitals and other restricted locations.

The agency said campaign advertisements must receive the necessary approval from the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria and that billboard deployment must be undertaken by registered and licensed advertising practitioners.

Kano takes a different approach

Kano State presents a sharp contrast to states where campaign billboard charges have reached hundreds of millions of naira.

The Kano State Signage and Advertisement Agency, established by Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf in 2025 to regulate outdoor advertising and signage, does not currently distinguish between political and commercial billboards.

According to the agency's Director of Public Enlightenment, Munzali Muhammad Hausawa, politicians do not obtain a special political billboard rate. Instead, they approach advertising practitioners or companies that pay the applicable administrative and annual fees.

The total amount is about N1.15 million.

Hausawa said the agency works with advertising practitioners registered with the relevant regulatory authorities before approving billboard placements.

Kaduna leaves the amount to assessment

Kaduna State has also adopted a different model.

A source at the Kaduna State Urban Property Development Agency said there was no fixed amount announced in advance for campaign billboard placement.

Instead, prospective advertisers are expected to identify the location where they intend to erect a billboard. The agency then assesses the proposed site before determining the applicable fee.

The amount depends on the location and whether the billboard is for political or commercial advertising.

Bauchi focuses on removal and regulation

In Bauchi State, the immediate issue has been less about announcing a specific campaign billboard fee and more about controlling where political materials can be displayed.

The state government, through the Bauchi State Infrastructure Development and Maintenance Agency, the Physical Planning and Development Control Board, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Board of Internal Revenue, ordered the removal of campaign billboards, banners and posters mounted on streetlights, utility poles and major flyovers.

Political parties and their supporters were given a one-week deadline to remove the materials.

The directive, however, triggered a political dispute.

The Peoples Redemption Party accused the government of selectively enforcing the rule, alleging that campaign materials belonging to the Allied Peoples Movement had remained on public infrastructure despite the directive.

PRP state chairman Abdurrahman Yusuf Muazu demanded that the government remove the materials or face legal action.

He alleged that locations including Kofar Gombe Gate, Kofar Nassarawa and Kofar Ran had continued to carry APM campaign materials.

“This blatant favouritism and inconsistent enforcement undermine the principles of fairness, equity and the rule of law that should govern Bauchi State. Notably, sections 92-95 of the Electoral Act strictly prohibit such conduct, yet the APM’s displays remain untouched,” he said.

The General Manager of the Bauchi State Physical Planning and Development Control Board, Ibrahim Muhammad, said the agency had not yet announced approved fees for political campaign billboards.

He said the board was primarily concerned with the location of campaign billboards and that enforcement involved several government agencies.

Other states join the debate

The fees announced in other states have added to the growing concern.

Cross River State has set the presidential billboard fee at N150 million and the governorship fee at N100 million.

In Enugu State, a reported N150 million charge applies to campaign materials, billboard use and branded campaign vehicles.

The range of charges has led to growing criticism from opposition parties and civil society actors, particularly because the fees are being introduced as political parties prepare for months of intense campaigning.

Opposition parties cry foul

The African Democratic Congress has vowed to challenge what it described as excessive billboard fees imposed by several state governments.

ADC National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi said the charges appeared targeted at opposition parties.

“It is certainly targeted at the opposition. And we are going to challenge it.”

The Nigeria Democratic Congress has also condemned the fees.

Its Director of Publicity, Ossai Director, described the increases as undemocratic and unacceptable, arguing that they could give ruling parties an advantage over challengers.

He said the party would not pay what it considered unreasonable charges and would rely on other forms of communication to reach voters.

He added that the party was studying the various regulations and would consider legal action if necessary.

Is regulation becoming a political barrier?

The central question surrounding the fees is not whether governments have the authority to regulate outdoor advertising. Rather, critics are asking whether regulation can legitimately result in charges so high that political competitors are effectively denied access to public visibility.

Political scientist Professor Kamilu Sani Fage of Bayero University, Kano, believes the timing is particularly problematic.

He acknowledged that billboard taxation has existed in some states, including Lagos, but argued that introducing or aggressively enforcing high charges immediately before elections could create an opportunity for political manipulation.

“For state governments to introduce it in the name of generating revenue, I believe there are certain sinister political motives. Opposition parties may not be able to pay such money, while ruling parties are often exempted,” he said.

Fage warned that the policy could prevent opposition candidates from adequately presenting their programmes to voters.

He also argued that ruling parties could have access to public resources that opposition candidates do not enjoy.

“Even if the intention is revenue generation, politicians will abuse it. They will use it to gag opposition parties, who may end up being squeezed or dragged to court for violations,” he added.

He described the timing as wrong and warned that the policy could tilt the political environment towards incumbents.

Civil society calls for scrutiny

Global Director of the Brain Builders Youth Development Initiative, Olasupo Abideen, said governments might genuinely view billboard charges as a source of revenue, but he questioned why several states were introducing such measures at this particular stage of the electoral cycle.

“The placement of billboard fees across several states could be viewed from the government’s perspective as a revenue generation measure. Nigerians should scrutinise the timing and long term objectives of the initiative,” he said.

He said stakeholders should ask why the policies were introduced, what governments hoped to achieve and whether sufficient consultation took place before implementation.

Abideen said high charges could restrict opposition parties' ability to communicate their manifestos and programmes, even if the stated purpose of the regulations was revenue generation.

The Director of Media Advocacy and Technologies Centre, Musa Aliyu, similarly warned that excessive signage charges could weaken political competition.

He said legitimate regulation should not become a mechanism for preventing parties with fewer resources from reaching voters.

According to him, charges running into hundreds of millions of naira could make prominent advertising spaces inaccessible to opposition candidates.

“This is one of the ways through which politicians endanger Nigeria’s democracy. It is not good for democracy,” he said.

APC distances itself from the charges

The ruling All Progressives Congress has denied responsibility for the billboard fees.

Although APC publicity secretary Felix Morka could not be reached, a party chieftain said the fees were determined by state and, in some cases, local governments.

He argued that political parties and the federal government had no role in fixing the charges.

“Where there should be an issue is when a political party or candidate is denied a chance to mount such billboards even when they have the money to pay the stipulated fees. But the amount to be paid solely depends on the state or local government as the case may be. That is why you see that the amount is not uniform across the states,” he said.

The argument reflects the legal distinction between federal electoral regulation and state or local regulation of physical advertising infrastructure.

What the Electoral Act says

The billboard dispute also raises questions about the relationship between the Electoral Act and state signage laws.

Constitutional lawyer Kehinde Oloje said the Electoral Act does not contain a specific provision that expressly regulates the physical placement of billboards in public spaces.

Instead, he explained, the location, size and permitting of outdoor advertising generally fall within state and local government urban planning and signage regulations.

Bodies such as the Lagos State Signage and Advertisement Agency and the FCT Department of Outdoor Advertisement and Signage therefore play roles in determining where outdoor advertising structures can be erected and what permits are required.

The Electoral Act, however, regulates political campaigns and advertisements in other respects.

Campaigning is subject to a statutory timetable, and political advertising is prohibited during the final 24 hours before an election. Campaign messages must also not contain abusive language or religious or tribal material likely to promote hatred.

Oloje said the restrictions mean that while state authorities control the physical infrastructure and permitting of outdoor advertising, political parties remain subject to federal electoral rules governing the content and timing of their campaigns.

He also noted that most states prohibit the indiscriminate pasting of posters and placement of campaign materials on public infrastructure such as bridges, trees and traffic lights.

Violations of those rules can result in removal of the materials and other sanctions independently of the Electoral Act.

Spending limits rise ahead of 2027

The controversy over billboard fees comes against the backdrop of a significant increase in the amount candidates are legally permitted to spend during the 2027 election cycle.

Under the Electoral Act 2026, the presidential campaign spending limit has doubled from N5 billion under the Electoral Act 2022 to N10 billion.

The new law sets the governorship ceiling at N3 billion, compared with N1 billion under the previous Act.

For National Assembly contests, the limit for senatorial candidates has risen from N100 million to N500 million, while the House of Representatives ceiling has increased from N70 million to N250 million.

The spending limit for State House of Assembly candidates has risen from N30 million to N100 million.

For area council elections, the chairmanship ceiling is now N100 million, up from N30 million, while the councillorship limit has doubled from N5 million to N10 million.

The new limits therefore stand at N10 billion for presidential candidates, N3 billion for governorship candidates, N500 million for senatorial candidates, N250 million for House of Representatives candidates, N100 million for State House of Assembly candidates, N100 million for area council chairmanship candidates and N10 million for councillorship candidates.

The increase provides candidates with considerably more room to spend on campaigns, but it also raises questions about how the cost of state-level advertising fees will fit into those statutory limits.

The bigger democratic question

For politicians, billboards are more than advertising structures. They are tools for establishing name recognition, projecting political strength and communicating directly with voters in public spaces.

For governments, however, billboard regulation is also connected to urban planning, environmental protection, public safety and revenue collection.

The challenge for the 2027 elections will therefore be finding a balance between legitimate regulation and equal political access.

The concern raised by opposition parties and analysts is that a fee can cease to function as a regulatory charge when its size becomes prohibitive. If a candidate must spend tens or hundreds of millions of naira merely to obtain permission to display campaign materials, critics argue, the rule could influence not only the appearance of cities but also the competitiveness of the election itself.

The issue becomes even more sensitive where the government responsible for fixing or enforcing the charges is controlled by the same political party whose candidates are competing in the election.

Abideen said the public should therefore scrutinise not only the amount being charged but also the process used to establish the fees, the extent of stakeholder consultation and the consistency with which the rules are enforced.

As the 2027 campaign season gathers momentum, candidates will have to decide how much of their campaign resources to devote to physical visibility and how much to radio, television, digital platforms, rallies and grassroots mobilisation.

For opposition parties, the calculation could be even more difficult.

With presidential billboard permits reaching N200 million in Abia, N150 million in Kogi and Cross River, N75 million in Rivers and N50 million in Anambra, the price of being seen has become an important part of the political contest.

And with months of campaigning still ahead, the debate over whether those charges are legitimate regulation or an obstacle to fair political competition is unlikely to disappear soon.
:::