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.

The Certified True Copy of the Court Judgement :

A retired justice of the Supreme Court, Amina Adamu Augie, has warned that corruption within Nigeria’s judiciary and legal profession is eroding public confidence in the administration of justice and transforming the courts from institutions of impartiality into what she described as “market stalls.”

Speaking in Abuja during the 40th anniversary celebration of the Nigerian Law School Class of 1986, popularly known as the Centennial Class, Augie said corrupt practices involving judges, lawyers and court officials had weakened the credibility of the justice system and damaged the public’s perception of the legal profession.

The retired justice called for practitioners found guilty of misconduct to be punished, regardless of their seniority, influence or professional standing.

Augie, who taught at the Nigerian Law School before beginning her judicial career, identified corruption, political interference, inadequate funding and delays in the administration of justice as some of the most serious challenges facing Nigeria’s judiciary.

“The third, which I will not dress up, is corruption. Where it exists on the Bench, at the Bar, or in the Registry, it poisons everything by turning the one place that a citizen should find impartiality into one more market stall,” she said.

She nevertheless cautioned against the blanket condemnation of the judiciary, stressing that the majority of judges and lawyers remained honest, hardworking and poorly remunerated.

According to her, the justice system must be designed in a way that protects judicial officers and other legal practitioners from undue pressure and temptation, rather than exposing them to conditions that make misconduct easier.

Augie expressed particular concern about the conduct of some senior members of the legal profession, saying their actions had contributed substantially to the decline in public trust in the courts and the wider justice system.

“Have we kept faith with them? In part, YES, in part, NO. Public trust has paid the price. The public today is quick to believe the worst of lawyers, and sorry to say, not always without cause,” she said.

“When a few senior members of the profession have been found to traffic in the corruption of justice, the damage is not to them alone; it stains the gown we all wear.”

She said rebuilding confidence in the legal system would require more than public relations campaigns or efforts to improve the image of the judiciary. In her view, the profession must demonstrate a willingness to discipline its members openly and fairly, without being intimidated by their status.

“Restoring that trust is not a matter of better public relations. It is a matter of conduct and a profession willing to discipline its own, without fear or favor, no matter how senior the offender may be in the legal profession,” she said.

The retired justice reminded lawyers that their foremost duty was to the court and the administration of justice, not merely to the clients who retained them. She said professional responsibility demanded honesty, candour, respect for judicial authority and commitment to the rule of law.

Augie urged lawyers to reject attempts to manipulate court proceedings, manufacture or distort evidence, delay cases unnecessarily or secure favourable judgments through improper influence.

She also warned that corruption could not be addressed in isolation from the broader conditions under which the judiciary operates. Inadequate funding, she said, posed a serious threat to judicial independence because a court that depended on the executive for basic infrastructure and operational needs could not be regarded as completely autonomous.

“A Judiciary that must beg the executive for a Courtroom roof, vehicles, or even the Judges’ entitlements is not fully free; financial autonomy for the Courts is not a perk for Justices and Judges, but a guarantee for litigants,” she said.

Augie further criticised the delays and high costs that continue to make litigation inaccessible to many Nigerians. She described delay as the “chronic disease” of the country’s justice system and said it had weakened public confidence in the courts.

Drawing on her experience at the Supreme Court, she said the apex court was burdened by an excessive number of appeals, including disputes that should ordinarily have been resolved at lower levels of the judicial system.

She recalled an appeal concerning the burning of 12 goats that eventually reached the Supreme Court, despite the enormous workload already confronting the court.

According to her, constitutional amendments were needed to narrow the categories of cases that could be taken to the apex court. Such reforms, she said, would enable Supreme Court justices to focus on matters involving significant constitutional, legal and national questions.

Augie also condemned the repeated failure of government authorities to comply with court orders. She cited the prolonged detention of former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki and Islamic Movement leader Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, despite judicial directives ordering their release.

She said the disobedience of court orders by public officials weakened the authority of the judiciary and sent a dangerous message that compliance with the law was optional for those in power.

Reflecting on the development of Nigeria’s justice system over the past four decades, Augie acknowledged that progress had been made, particularly since the country’s return to democratic rule in 1999. However, she expressed disappointment that justice remained slow, expensive and beyond the reach of many citizens.

She referred to Nigeria’s ranking of 120th out of 143 countries in the 2025 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, describing the position as an uncomfortable indication of the country’s institutional weaknesses and the continuing challenges facing its justice system.

Augie called for comprehensive reforms to strengthen judicial independence, improve access to justice, modernise case management, reduce delays and restore ethical standards across the legal profession.

She urged members of the Class of 1986, many of whom now hold senior positions in the judiciary, government and legal profession, to use their influence to defend the rule of law and rebuild public confidence in the courts.

“If Governments obey the Courts, if its Judgments are enforced, if justice comes within a reasonable time and within reach of the poor, if the profession upholds its integrity and disciplines its own, Nigeria would be better positioned to secure its future”, she said. (Weekend Trust)