NEWS
Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Judgment Limiting Federal Control Over Waterway Adjoining Lands
In a landmark constitutional judgment with far-reaching implications for federalism, land administration, waterfront development and resource control in Nigeria, the Supreme Court has curtailed the powers of the Federal Government over lands adjoining inland waterways across the country, declaring portions of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act unconstitutional.
The apex court, in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, ruled in favour of Lagos State and other states challenging the constitutional validity of sections of the NIWA Act that empowered the Federal Government and the National Inland Waterways Authority to exercise broad control over lands adjoining waterways within states.
Delivering the judgment, the seven-member panel of the Supreme Court held that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act are unconstitutional to the extent that they authorise the Federal Government to regulate and control lands adjoining waterways for purposes unrelated to navigation, maritime activities and fishing.
The court affirmed that while the Federal Government retains constitutional authority over navigation, declared federal waterways, maritime activities and fishing, such powers do not extend to the general control of adjoining lands used for non-navigational purposes within states.
The decision marks a major legal victory for Lagos State, which instituted the suit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Other states that joined the action against the Federal Government included Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Ogun, Cross River, Kaduna, Enugu, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Benue, Rivers, Osun, Oyo and Anambra States.
Lagos State’s legal team was led by former Governor of Lagos State, Babatunde Raji Fashola SAN, alongside Olasupo Shasore SAN and Muiz Banire SAN, while the Federal Government was represented by Akin Olujinmi SAN.
The panel, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from dealing with lands adjoining waterways within Lagos State and other states of the federation for non-navigational purposes.
Other members of the panel included Justices Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, Haruna Simon Tsammani, Stephen Jonah Adah, Abubakar Sadiq Umar and Mohammed Baba Idris. Justice Umar read the lead judgment.
Although the court was unanimous on most issues raised in the suit, the decision recorded a 5-2 split on the constitutionality of Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act.
Justices Agim and Idris dissented on some aspects of the ruling, maintaining that Lagos State ought to have succeeded on additional reliefs relating to Federal control over waterways.
Lagos State had challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act, arguing that the National Assembly exceeded its legislative authority by empowering the Federal Government and NIWA to exercise sweeping control over lands adjoining waterways within states.
The state contended that the disputed provisions conflicted with Sections 4 and 315 of the Constitution, the Land Use Act, as well as Items 36 and 64 of the Exclusive Legislative List.
Lagos further argued that the Federal Government could not validly exercise powers over inland waterways that had not been expressly designated as international or interstate waterways by the National Assembly.
The state also maintained that the Federal Government lacked constitutional authority to regulate adjoining lands for purposes unrelated to navigation.
As part of the reliefs sought, Lagos State requested declarations nullifying the disputed provisions of the NIWA Act and restraining Federal authorities from exercising control over adjoining lands within its territory.
Before considering the substantive issues, the Supreme Court first addressed preliminary objections raised by the Federal Government and other defendants challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The apex court, however, dismissed the objections for lacking merit and proceeded to determine the constitutional questions raised in the suit.
One of the major issues examined by the court was whether the dispute had already been settled in the earlier legal battle between NIWA and the Lagos State Waterways Authority (LSWA).
The defendants had argued that the doctrine of res judicata applied, insisting that the issues had already been determined in the earlier NIWA v. LSWA decision.
However, the Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the present suit was distinguishable from the earlier case and was therefore not barred.
The ruling paved the way for the apex court to fully examine the constitutional validity of the disputed provisions of the NIWA Act.
In its substantive findings, the court held that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act went beyond the constitutional powers granted to the National Assembly.
The court ruled that although the Federal Government possesses constitutional authority over navigation, maritime activities, fishing and international waterways, those powers do not extend to the general regulation and control of lands adjoining waterways within states.
According to the court, the National Assembly acted ultra vires by attempting to regulate adjoining lands for purposes outside navigation-related activities.
Consequently, the apex court declared Sections 12 and 13 unconstitutional and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.
The court further held that the Federal Government cannot rely on those provisions to deal with adjoining lands for non-navigational purposes.
Despite the partial victory secured by Lagos State and the other states, the Supreme Court declined to invalidate Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act.
The apex court reaffirmed its earlier position in the NIWA v. LSWA case, maintaining that the Federal Government retains constitutional authority over matters relating to navigation and declared federal waterways.
The court also rejected Lagos State’s argument that federal authority over inland waterways exists only where express declarations have been made by the National Assembly.
That aspect of the judgment ultimately resulted in the 5-2 split among the justices.
One of the most consequential aspects of the ruling was the perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from dealing “in any manner whatsoever” with lands adjoining waterways within Lagos State and other states for non-navigational purposes.
By limiting federal powers over adjoining lands while preserving Federal authority over navigation and waterways, the Supreme Court effectively drew a constitutional boundary between federal legislative competence and state territorial control.
The judgment also reinforced the relevance of the Land Use Act and the constitutional recognition of state territories under Section 3 and the First Schedule to the Constitution.
Legal observers believe the decision will significantly influence future constitutional litigation relating to waterways, land administration, federalism, environmental regulation, urban planning, waterfront development and resource control across Nigeria.
The ruling is also expected to have major implications for revenue generation and land reclamation activities in Lagos and other coastal states.