The Federal Government’s long-standing authority to control lands along Nigeria’s inland waterways has suffered a significant legal blow, as the Supreme Court struck down core provisions of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act.
In a landmark judgment delivered in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, the apex court ruled that the Federal Government cannot regulate waterfront properties or adjoining lands unless the purpose is directly connected to navigation or maritime activities. The suit was originally filed by the Lagos State Government, which challenged the constitutional limits of federal power over inland waterways within state territories.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, held that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act went beyond the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar, who read the lead judgment, clarified that while the federal government retains authority over the waterways themselves for navigational purposes, that power does not extend to the control of adjacent lands for unrelated uses such as real estate development, agriculture, or other non-maritime activities.
According to the court, the 1999 Constitution does not grant the National Assembly the power to legislate on lands situated within a state except where such regulation is incidental to a federal function—in this case, navigation. By attempting to control adjoining lands for non-navigational ends, the NIWA Act was deemed an unconstitutional overreach.
The Federal Government, represented by Akin Olujimi (SAN), had argued that federal control over the entirety of inland waterways and their surroundings was necessary for safety, security, and comprehensive water management. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that such an interpretation would unlawfully strip states of their constitutional jurisdiction over land matters as listed in the Second Schedule of the Constitution.
Lagos State’s legal team, which included Senior Advocates Babatunde Raji Fashola, Olasupo Shasore (SAN), and Muiz Banire (SAN), successfully argued that the NIWA Act had effectively dispossessed coastal states of their rights over vast stretches of waterfront property. They maintained that unless the federal government is actively pursuing a navigational or maritime purpose, all control over waterway-adjacent lands must revert to the state governments.
Notably, the ruling was not unanimous. Two justices on the panel—Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim and Justice Mohammed Baba Idris—dissented, holding that federal oversight of inland waterways necessarily includes some degree of control over buffer lands to ensure safe passage, prevent erosion, and combat pollution.
Nevertheless, the majority decision now stands as binding precedent. The court formally restrained the Federal Government and its agencies, including NIWA, from exercising any control over waterway-adjoining lands for purposes unrelated to navigation, maritime commerce, or fishing.
Legal analysts say the judgment strengthens the constitutional principle of federalism in Nigeria, reaffirming that states retain primary jurisdiction over land within their boundaries—including valuable waterfront and coastal properties—except where a clear federal interest under the Constitution is at stake.
For property owners, investors, and state governments across Nigeria—particularly in Lagos, Rivers, Delta, and other coastal states—the ruling opens the door to greater local control over waterfront development, land titling, and environmental regulation, potentially reshaping the governance of thousands of kilometers of inland waterway frontage.
Discussion about this post