Billboards For The Rich? High Campaign Charges Stir Fears Over 2027 Election Fairness

By MELVIN KOFFA

High Billboard Costs & the Emerging Economics of Nigeria’s 2027 Elections

THE approaching 2027 general elections are already generating debate over one of the less examined dimensions of electoral competition in Nigeria: the cost of being politically visible.

Across several states and the Federal Capital Territory, political parties and candidates face varying charges for outdoor advertising, with some recently announced fees reaching tens or even hundreds of millions of naira for candidates seeking major elective offices.

The development has triggered concern among lawyers, politicians, civil society advocates, media practitioners and public affairs analysts who fear that the escalating cost of political billboards could further tilt electoral competition towards candidates and parties with deep financial resources.

At the centre of the debate is a fundamental question: Can Nigeria guarantee equal political participation when access to some of its most visible campaign spaces increasingly depends on the ability to pay?

Abia’s Charges Trigger Fresh Debate

The controversy intensified following the announcement of political billboard charges in Abia State.

According to Ndubuisi Nwaogwugwu, Head of the Department of Strategy, Innovation and Design at the Abia State Structures for Signage and Advertising Agency, presidential candidates would pay ₦200 million for campaign advertising permits.

Governorship candidates were quoted at ₦150 million, senatorial candidates at ₦100 million, House of Representatives candidates at ₦50 million and House of Assembly candidates at ₦20 million.

The figures, announced at a stakeholders’ forum on political campaigns in Aba, have prompted questions about whether such charges merely regulate outdoor advertising or inadvertently introduce another financial barrier into electoral politics.

Barrister Olalekan Festus Ojo, a Lagos-based human rights lawyer, argued that the implications go beyond advertising.

He said excessively high charges could reinforce an existing imbalance in Nigerian politics, where access to financial resources already influences party structures, nomination processes and campaign activities.

The Financial Barrier to Political Visibility

For smaller political parties and grassroots candidates, the problem is potentially significant.

Billboards remain among the most visible forms of political advertising in Nigerian cities. They dominate major roads, junctions and commercial centres and are often used by candidates to establish name recognition among voters.

If the cost of obtaining permits and maintaining billboard campaigns rises sharply, candidates without substantial financial backing could struggle to compete for those spaces.

Ojo described this possibility as a form of financial exclusion, arguing that political competition could increasingly favour established parties and wealthy candidates.

Barrister Kenneth Udeze, National Chairman of the Action Alliance, similarly warned that high billboard charges could deepen inequality ahead of 2027.

He argued that wealthy parties and candidates could dominate public spaces while smaller parties and grassroots aspirants struggle to maintain visibility.

The concern is not that candidates must necessarily use billboards. Rather, the argument is that when one candidate can afford extensive public visibility and another cannot, the difference may affect how voters encounter political messages in the physical public sphere.

Could Expensive Advertising Push Campaigns Underground?

Some political stakeholders see another potential consequence.

Udeze warned that excessive campaign costs could encourage parties and candidates to search for alternative sources of funding, including practices that electoral regulations are designed to discourage.

That concern places the billboard debate within the broader problem of campaign financing in Nigeria.

Political campaigns already require substantial resources for transportation, rallies, media appearances, mobilisation, logistics, polling agents and communication.

Adding very high outdoor advertising charges could increase the financial pressure on candidates.

Jegede Kehinde of the African Action Congress argued that democracy should be determined by ideas, competence and public support rather than financial capacity.

He maintained that smaller parties could be pushed further away from mainstream political visibility if public advertising spaces become unaffordable.

Digital Media Offers an Alternative

Yet the changing media environment provides political actors with another route.

Barrister Ojo pointed to social media, podcasts, YouTube, online news platforms and other digital channels as relatively accessible alternatives to traditional outdoor advertising.

Other analysts identified WhatsApp, Facebook, TikTok, radio, local television, town-hall meetings and door-to-door mobilisation as likely beneficiaries of the shift.

Professor John Ebhomien, an APC chieftain, argued that parties would increasingly have to adopt a digital-first and grassroots campaign model.

Instead of covering cities with dozens of billboards, parties could concentrate on fewer strategically located boards while using digital platforms to reach targeted audiences.

That strategy could reduce advertising costs and force parties to invest more heavily in message development and direct voter engagement.

But Digital Politics Is Not a Complete Substitute

The digital alternative, however, has limitations.

Nigeria’s electorate is not entirely online. Rural communities, older voters and citizens with limited internet access may remain more dependent on radio, television, physical meetings and direct community mobilisation.

Consequently, removing or pricing candidates out of traditional public advertising spaces does not necessarily produce an equal digital playing field.

It may instead create a different form of inequality between candidates with strong digital operations and those without them.

The Regulatory Question

Civil society advocates therefore argue that governments should balance legitimate regulation with the constitutional and democratic importance of political expression.

Tola Oresanwo, Director of Administration and Programmes at the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership, acknowledged the authority of states to regulate outdoor advertising and generate revenue.

But he argued that excessive charges could disadvantage smaller parties, women, young candidates and independent aspirants.

The challenge for regulators is therefore to distinguish between reasonable regulation and prohibitive pricing.

Political advertising requires rules. Public spaces cannot simply be occupied without regulation, and governments have legitimate responsibilities relating to safety, urban planning, aesthetics and revenue.

But campaign regulations also operate within an electoral environment where equal political opportunity matters.

The Cost Varies Across the Country

The emerging national picture is far from uniform.

Billboard advertising charges vary according to state, location, size, duration, structure and regulatory framework.

In Lagos, outdoor political advertising is regulated through the Lagos State Signage and Advertisement Agency, with charges influenced by location zones and billboard specifications.

The FCT also regulates outdoor advertising through its relevant signage authority.

Kano has its own regulatory framework, with billboard permit costs depending on location and structure.

This variation means that candidates competing for the same national office may face very different advertising environments depending on where they campaign.

What 2027 Could Look Like

The likely consequence is not that expensive billboards will end political campaigning.

Instead, they may change how campaigns are designed and financed.

Parties may use fewer billboards, concentrate them in strategic locations and expand their presence on social media, radio and community platforms.

Grassroots mobilisation could become more important.

Town-hall meetings, ward-level campaigns, direct voter engagement and targeted digital messaging could gain greater prominence.

But the underlying financial inequality will remain unless campaign costs are addressed more broadly.

Beyond the Billboard

The billboard controversy ultimately exposes a larger problem in Nigerian politics: the growing cost of political participation.

From party nominations to campaign logistics, political competition requires substantial financial resources.

If public communication platforms become increasingly expensive, the democratic system risks becoming more accessible to those who can afford it.

That does not automatically mean that high billboard charges are unconstitutional or illegitimate. Such a conclusion requires careful examination of the applicable laws, regulations, fee structures and their implementation.

But the concerns raised by stakeholders deserve scrutiny.

As Nigeria approaches 2027, the central issue should not simply be how many billboards candidates can afford to erect.

It should be whether citizens can encounter a sufficiently diverse range of political ideas and candidates to make informed choices.

A democracy is not strengthened merely because political advertising is regulated. It is strengthened when regulation, competition and access to political participation coexist without allowing money to become the primary gatekeeper.