ABUJA — In a monumental verdict that dramatically alters the landscape of Nigerian federalism, the Supreme Court has severely curtailed the Federal Government’s sweeping authority over lands adjoining inland waterways across the federation. Delivering its judgment in Abuja, the apex court declared crucial provisions of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act unconstitutional, invalidating them to the extent that they overreached into state territory and stripped local authorities of land management powers.
The landmark constitutional judgment, delivered in the suit cataloged as Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, marks a historic victory for the Lagos State Government and 13 other co-plaintiff states. The apex court ruled that the Federal Government’s regulatory jurisdiction under the NIWA Act must be strictly confined to navigation, maritime activities, and fishing, leaving the administration of adjoining lands for urban planning, real estate, and commercial development safely within the purview of sub-national governments.
Lagos State spearheaded a formidable coalition of states from across Nigeria's geopolitical zones to confront what they described as federal overreach. Joining Lagos as co-plaintiffs in the high-stakes suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation were Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Rivers, Ogun, Kaduna, Enugu, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Benue, Osun, Oyo, and Anambra. To match the high stakes of the dispute, Lagos State assembled a stellar legal team led by its former Governor and former Federal Minister, Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN. Working alongside him were seasoned constitutional experts Olasupo Shasore, SAN, and Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN. The Federal Government, vigorously defending its decades-old statutory monopolies, was represented by the former Attorney-General of the Federation, Akin Olujinmi, SAN. The broad participation of states underscored a shared grievance: the aggressive enforcement of the NIWA Act by federal agents, who routinely seized regulatory control of prime waterfront properties, extracted tolls, and disrupted state-approved urban planning schemes under the guise of managing inland waterways.
Lagos State approached the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction—a legal mechanism reserved for disputes directly between states and the federation. The state's primary contention was that the National Assembly had egregiously overstepped its legislative boundaries when it enacted certain sweeping sections of the NIWA Act. Specifically, Lagos challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Act. The state’s legal team argued that these provisions created an artificial, illegal federal enclave within the geographic boundaries of states. They contended that the law flagrantly conflicted with Sections 4 and 315 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which delimit legislative powers; the Land Use Act, which explicitly vests all lands within the territory of a state in the Executive Governor, to be held in trust for the people; and Items 36 and 64 of the Exclusive Legislative List, which restrict federal powers primarily to maritime shipping, navigation, and designated international or interstate waterways. Furthermore, Fashola and his co-counsel posited that federal authority could not automatically apply to every stream, creek, or riverbank within a state unless the National Assembly had specifically passed legislation designating such body of water as an international or interstate waterway. Most crucially, they argued that even where a waterway is deemed federal for shipping purposes, that designation does not grant the federal government the right to regulate the dry land adjoining the water for non-navigational purposes, such as real estate, hospitality, or local market activities.
Before arriving at the merits of the case, the seven-member panel of justices had to navigate a minefield of preliminary objections raised by the Federal Government. Chief among the defendants' arguments was the doctrine of res judicata. Akin Olujinmi, SAN, appearing for the federation, argued that the apex court had already laid the entire dispute to rest in an earlier, highly publicized legal battle between NIWA and the Lagos State Waterways Authority (LSWA). The federal defense claimed that the current suit was merely an attempt to re-litigate settled matters and urged the court to throw it out for want of jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court flatly rejected this argument. In reviewing the preliminary objections, the apex court held that the current suit raised distinct, broader constitutional questions involving the fundamental separation of powers between tiers of government that went well beyond the operational frictions evaluated in the previous NIWA v. LSWA case. Dismissing the objections as lacking merit, the panel cleared the deck to scrutinize the constitutional validity of the NIWA Act itself.
The lead judgment, written and read by Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar, went to the heart of the statutory friction. The court held that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act were clear instances of legislative overreach, declaring that the National Assembly had acted ultra vires—beyond its constitutional powers—when it drafted those provisions. The apex court clarified that while the 1999 Constitution undeniably grants the Federal Government exclusive authority over shipping, navigation, maritime activities, fishing, and explicitly declared international waterways, these powers are functional, not territorial. They do not convey an all-encompassing, ownership-like control over the dry land bordering these waters. The Federal Government cannot rely on the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act to deal with lands adjoining waterways for non-navigational purposes, the court declared. Consequently, the court pronounced those sections unconstitutional, null, and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the grand norm. To solidify this boundary, the court took the extraordinary step of issuing a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government and its agencies, including NIWA, from interfering with, leasing, or regulating lands adjoining waterways within Lagos State and the other plaintiff states for any purposes unrelated to navigation.
While the panel achieved consensus on striking down federal control over adjoining lands, it split down the middle regarding the outright ownership and categorization of the waterways themselves. The final decision recorded a 5-2 majority split regarding the constitutionality of Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act. The majority panel—comprising Justices Mohammed Lawal Garba (who presided), Abubakar Sadiq Umar, Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, Haruna Simon Tsammani, and Stephen Jonah Adah—declined to completely invalidate Sections 10 and 11. They reaffirmed the principles established in the earlier NIWA v. LSWA case, ruling that the Federal Government does retain ultimate legislative and regulatory authority over matters strictly pertaining to navigation on declared federal waterways. The majority rejected Lagos State's ambitious plea for a declaration that federal authority exists only where the National Assembly has made an explicit, individual declaration for every specific body of water. They maintained that the baseline federal competence over navigation across the country's broader inland network remains intact. This refusal to grant total victory to the states provoked strong dissents from Justices Emmanuel Akomaye Agim and Mohammed Baba Idris. In their minority opinions, the dissenting justices argued that the federal government's claims over intra-state waters were overly broad. They maintained that Lagos State and the co-plaintiffs ought to have succeeded on those additional reliefs, arguing for an even stricter interpretation of federal legislative powers in a true federation.
The ramifications of this judgment are poised to reverberate across the economic and administrative landscapes of Nigeria's coastal and riverine states. For over two decades, developers, concessionaires, and state governments have found themselves caught in a regulatory crossfire, often forced to pay double taxes and seek duplicate permits from both state land registries and federal NIWA offices for the exact same waterfront projects. With the Supreme Court firmly drawing the line at the water's edge, state governments have successfully reclaimed full territorial sovereignty over their shorelines.
This shift is expected to boost sub-national revenues, as states like Lagos, Rivers, and Akwa Ibom can now exclusively collect tenement rates, land use charges, and regularization fees from high-value waterfront properties, luxury estates, and hospitality ventures without federal interference. It also allows for unfettered urban planning, enabling state ministries of physical planning to seamlessly integrate waterfronts into local master plans, free from the threat of NIWA overriding their zoning laws or allocating pieces of shorelines to third-party developers. Furthermore, it clarifies mandates for environmental governance, allowing state environmental protection agencies to oversee land reclamation and sand-dredging activities, which directly impact local ecological systems and coastal erosion.
By reinforcing the primacy of the Land Use Act and anchoring its reasoning on Section 3 and the First Schedule to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message. The judgment establishes a precise constitutional equilibrium: the federal government keeps its ships moving safely on the water, but the states retain absolute dominion over the land upon which those waters crash. Legal observers agree that this landmark decision will serve as a cornerstone for future constitutional litigation surrounding Nigerian federalism, resource control, and state territorial integrity for generations to come.
