The Muyi Fatosa Campaign Organisation has criticised the Kogi State Government’s newly announced campaign signage fees, insisting that benchmarking against other states cannot substitute for a proper economic and regulatory justification of the charges.
The campaign organisation was reacting to the government’s explanation that the new fees were arrived at following a peer review of charges in other states. In its response, the organisation said such comparisons, while useful as a starting point, do not answer the more fundamental question of what is appropriate for Kogi.
“Another state charging a particular amount does not answer the fundamental question of what is appropriate for Kogi,” the organisation said. “What is the local cost of regulation? What service is being provided? What measurable value justifies these figures? Those are the questions government should answer.”
The campaign organisation also turned its attention to the Kogi State Signage and Advertisement Agency (KOSSAA), challenging the agency to demonstrate its regulatory effectiveness before imposing substantial new charges on political advertising. It pointed to the state of outdoor advertising across Lokoja and other parts of Kogi, describing it as visibly scattered and poorly coordinated, with billboards, signboards, posters and other structures contributing to the very disorder an effective signage regulator would be expected to address.
“There is a contradiction in demanding a premium for regulation when evidence of inadequate regulation is scattered across the state,” the organisation said. “KOSSAA should first show Kogites the regulatory value it has created.”
The organisation was careful to note that its objection is not to regulation itself. It said it supports proper oversight of outdoor advertising, but cautioned against allowing that regulatory function to become primarily a tool for revenue extraction or a financial barrier to political participation.
It called on the state government to review the new charges and to publish the economic and regulatory methodology used in arriving at them, arguing that transparency on this point is essential to public confidence in the policy.
“Peer review should teach you how others solved a problem; it should not become an excuse to copy their price tag,” the organisation said. “Kogi deserves policy built around Kogi’s realities.”
