…..REJECTS N150M PERMIT CHALLENGE
The Federal High Court sitting in Enugu has upheld the authority of the Enugu State Structures for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA) to regulate political campaign advertising in the state, ruling that a mandatory payment of 150 million naira for billboard and poster permits was not unlawful.
In a judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/EN/CS/165/2026, Justice Mabel T. Segun-Bello held that the agency and its General Manager had the authority to issue the directive requiring political parties and candidates to pay the specified amount as a condition for obtaining permits to place billboards and posters for the 2026 and 2027 general elections.
The suit was instituted by the Labour Party, its Enugu State chairman, Hon. Ugwu Kingsley, the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Hon. Engr. Ibuchukwu Obeta, the Social Democratic Party and its Enugu State chairman, Hon. Dr. Ezea Magnus.
The defendants included ENSSAA, its General Manager, Mr. Francis Aninwike, the Enugu State House of Assembly, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) and the Nigeria Police Force.
In its findings, the court stated that the first defendant had “established it had a validly delegated authority” to issue the February 9, 2026 directive regulating political campaign advertisements.
The court also declared that it was not beyond the powers of ENSSAA and its General Manager to impose the 150-million-naira advertising permit fee, and that the Enugu State House of Assembly had the legislative authority to enact laws regulating advertising in the state.
Addressing the argument over INEC’s regulatory powers, Justice Segun-Bello held that Section 99(1) of the Electoral Act did not confer on the commission general regulatory control over physical outdoor advertising structures.
The judgment stated: “Section 99(1) of the Electoral Act does NOT confer upon INEC, a general regulatory competence over ‘outdoor advertising’ structures.”
The court further accepted the argument that outdoor advertising falls within the primary functions of local governments and may be exercised by a state agency where authority has been properly delegated.
However, the court did not entirely agree with the plaintiffs or the defendants on every issue.
It ruled that the subject matter of outdoor advertising was not reserved exclusively for the National Assembly or ARCON, while finding that the plaintiffs had not established an independent cause of action against INEC.
On the request for police protection against alleged harassment during the placement of campaign materials, the court considered it appropriate to grant the relief, citing the police’s statutory responsibility to protect lives and property and maintain law and order without political partiality.
The judgment also stated that the remaining reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, apart from those expressly granted, were refused.
The court made no order as to costs, noting that each party had succeeded on some issues and failed on others.
The ruling clarifies the court’s position on the respective roles of state advertising authorities, local governments and INEC in regulating political campaign billboards and posters ahead of the 2026 and 2027 general elections.
