Supreme Court Overturns Portions of NIWA Act, Prevents Federal Government from Controlling State Waterfront Lands

Supreme Court Declares Sections 12 and 13 of NIWA Act Unconstitutional

States Retain Control Over Adjoining Lands for Non‑Navigational Uses

Alex Enumah in Abuja and Wale Igbintade in Lagos

The Supreme Court issued a landmark constitutional judgment that limits the federal government’s authority over lands adjacent to inland waterways. The court found that Sections 12 and 13 of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act are unconstitutional when they give the federal government power to regulate and control such lands for purposes unrelated to navigation, maritime activities or fishing.

In Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, Lagos State secured a major victory. The court held that the federal government cannot exercise control over adjoining lands for non‑navigational purposes. Other states that joined the suit include Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Ogun, Cross River, Kaduna, Enugu, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Benue, Rivers, Osun, Oyo and Anambra.

Lagos State’s legal team was led by former Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola SAN, Olasupo Shasore SAN and Muiz Banire SAN. The federal government was represented by Akin Olujinmi SAN.

The court reaffirmed that state governments have constitutional authority over adjoining lands used for non‑navigational purposes, thereby restricting the federal government and NIWA from exercising sweeping control over such areas. A seven‑member panel, headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, issued a perpetual injunction preventing the federal government from dealing with lands adjoining waterways within Lagos State and other states for non‑navigational purposes.

The panel consisted of Justices Garba, 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. The decision was unanimous on most points, but there was a 5‑2 split on the constitutionality of Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act.

Justices Agim and Idris dissented on some aspects, arguing that Lagos State should have obtained additional reliefs concerning federal control over waterways. Lagos State had approached the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the NIWA Act. The state argued that the National Assembly exceeded its constitutional authority by enacting provisions that empowered the federal government and NIWA to control lands adjoining waterways within states. Specifically, Lagos contended that Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act conflicted with Sections 4 and 315 of the Constitution, the Land Use Act, and Items 36 and 64 of the Exclusive Legislative List. The state further argued that the federal government could not validly exercise powers over inland waterways that had not been designated as international or interstate waterways by the National Assembly, and that it lacked authority to regulate adjoining lands for purposes unrelated to navigation.

The state sought multiple declarations and orders nullifying the disputed provisions and restraining federal authorities from exercising control over adjoining lands within its territory. Before addressing the substantive issues, the Supreme Court considered preliminary objections filed by the federal government and other defendants challenging the court’s jurisdiction. The objections were dismissed for lacking merit.

The court then examined the constitutional questions raised in the suit. One key issue was whether the case had already been settled in the earlier dispute between NIWA and the Lagos State Waterways Authority (LSWA). The defendants argued that the doctrine of res judicata applied because the issues had been determined in the earlier NIWA v. LSWA decision. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that the present suit was distinguishable from the earlier case and therefore not barred. This allowed the 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 exceeded the constitutional powers granted to the National Assembly. While the federal government has authority over navigation, maritime activities, fishing and international waterways, those powers do not extend to general control over lands adjoining waterways within states. The court found that the National Assembly acted ultra vires by attempting to regulate adjoining lands for purposes outside navigation‑related activities. Accordingly, the court declared Sections 12 and 13 unconstitutional to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution. The federal government cannot rely on those provisions to deal with lands adjoining waterways for non‑navigational purposes. The judgment is expected to have far‑reaching implications for waterfront development, land reclamation, urban planning, environmental regulation and revenue generation in Lagos and other coastal states.

Despite Lagos State’s partial victory, the Supreme Court declined to invalidate Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act. The court reaffirmed its earlier position in NIWA v. LSWA, holding that the federal government retains constitutional authority over matters relating to navigation and declared federal waterways. Consequently, the court refused Lagos State’s requests for declarations that the National Assembly lacked legislative competence over waterways not specifically designated as international or interstate waterways. The apex court also rejected the argument that federal authority over inland waterways exists only where express declarations have been made by the National Assembly.

The refusal of those reliefs resulted in the 5‑2 split among the justices. One of the most consequential aspects of the judgment 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 court drew a constitutional boundary between federal legislative competence and state territorial control.

The decision further reinforces the relevance of the Land Use Act and the constitutional recognition of state territories under Section 3 and the First Schedule to the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted Lagos State’s reliefs seeking declarations that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act are unconstitutional and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution. The court also granted an order restraining the federal government from dealing with adjoining lands for non‑navigational purposes. However, it refused reliefs seeking declarations that the National Assembly lacks legislative competence over inland waterways not designated as international or interstate waterways. The court held that those claims had already been substantially addressed in the earlier NIWA v. LSWA decision. The judgment is expected to shape future constitutional litigation on waterways, land administration, federalism, and resource control across Nigeria.