Supreme Court Restricts FG’s Control Over Lands Beside Waterways

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government cannot exercise control over lands adjoining inland waterways across Nigeria except for purposes directly connected to navigation, maritime activities and fishing.
In a landmark judgment delivered in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, the apex court declared parts of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act unconstitutional, particularly Sections 12 and 13, insofar as they empower the Federal Government to regulate lands beside waterways for non-navigational purposes.
The suit was instituted by Lagos State, while several states joined as co-plaintiffs, including Bayelsa State, Akwa Ibom State, Ogun State, Cross River State, Kaduna State, Enugu State, Ebonyi State, Ekiti State, Benue State, Rivers State, Osun State, Oyo State and Anambra State, against the Federal Government.
Lagos State’s legal team was led by former governor Babatunde Raji Fashola, alongside Olasupo Shasore and Muiz Banire, while the Federal Government was represented by Akin Olujinmi.
Delivering the judgment, the seven-member panel headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that state governments retain constitutional authority over lands adjoining waterways where such lands are used for purposes unrelated to navigation and maritime operations.
The court also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from interfering with adjoining lands in Lagos and other states 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, with Justice Umar delivering the lead judgment.
Although the decision was largely unanimous, the justices were divided five to two on the validity of Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act. Justices Agim and Idris partly dissented, arguing that Lagos State ought to have succeeded on more of its claims challenging federal control over waterways.
Lagos State had approached the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, contending that the National Assembly exceeded its constitutional powers by granting the Federal Government and NIWA authority over lands adjoining waterways within states.
The state challenged Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act, arguing that they conflicted with the Constitution, the Land Use Act and provisions of the Exclusive Legislative List.
Lagos further argued that the Federal Government lacked authority over inland waterways that had not been specifically declared international or interstate waterways by the National Assembly.
Before addressing the substantive issues, the Supreme Court dismissed preliminary objections filed by the Federal Government and other defendants challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
The apex court also rejected claims that the matter had already been settled in the earlier dispute between NIWA and the Lagos State Waterways Authority, holding that the present case raised fresh constitutional questions and was therefore not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
In its findings, the court ruled that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act went beyond the powers constitutionally granted to the National Assembly. It held that while the Federal Government has authority over navigation, maritime activities, fishing and international waterways, such powers do not extend to general control of adjoining lands located within states.
Consequently, the court declared the affected provisions unconstitutional to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.
However, the apex court declined to nullify Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act, affirming that the Federal Government retains constitutional authority over navigation and federally declared waterways, in line with its earlier decision in the NIWA versus Lagos State Waterways Authority case.
The court also refused Lagos State’s request for a declaration that the National Assembly lacks legislative powers over inland waterways not expressly designated as international or interstate waterways.
The judgment is expected to significantly impact waterfront development, land reclamation, urban planning, environmental regulation, revenue generation and future disputes concerning federal and state control over lands and waterways.
With the ruling, the Supreme Court effectively drew a constitutional boundary between federal authority over waterways and the powers of state governments over lands within their territories.