Governors Win as Supreme Court returns control of lands adjourning waterways to States

The Supreme Court has delivered a major judgment restricting the powers of the Federal Government over lands located beside inland waterways across the country.

In the decision delivered in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, the apex court declared portions of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act unconstitutional, particularly Sections 12 and 13, to the extent that they allow the Federal Government to regulate or control lands adjoining waterways for purposes not connected to navigation, maritime activities or fishing.

The case was filed by Lagos State, with several other states joining the action against the Federal Government. The states included 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, alongside Olasupo Shasore, SAN, and Muiz Banire, SAN. The Federal Government was represented by Akin Olujinmi, SAN.

The Supreme Court held that state governments have constitutional authority over lands adjoining waterways when such lands are used for purposes outside navigation and related maritime activities.

The seven-member panel, headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from dealing with lands adjoining waterways in Lagos and other states for non-navigational purposes.

Other members of the panel were Justices Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, Haruna Simon Tsammani, Stephen Jonah Adah, Abubakar Sadiq Umar and Mohammed Baba Idris. Justice Umar delivered the lead judgment.

While the court was largely unanimous, it split five to two on the validity of Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act. Justices Agim and Idris dissented in part, taking the position that Lagos State should have succeeded on more of its claims relating to federal control over waterways.

Lagos had approached the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, challenging some provisions of the NIWA Act. The state argued that the National Assembly acted beyond its constitutional powers by giving the Federal Government and NIWA authority over lands adjoining waterways within states.

It specifically challenged Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act, insisting that they conflicted with the Constitution, the Land Use Act, and relevant items on the Exclusive Legislative List.

Lagos also argued that the Federal Government could not exercise control over inland waterways that had not been expressly designated as international or interstate waterways by the National Assembly.

Before considering the main issues, the Supreme Court dismissed preliminary objections filed by the Federal Government and other defendants, who had challenged the court’s jurisdiction.

The court also rejected the argument that the case had already been settled in the earlier dispute between NIWA and the Lagos State Waterways Authority. According to the apex court, the present suit raised distinct constitutional questions and was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

In its findings, the court held that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act exceeded the powers granted to the National Assembly. It ruled that although the Federal Government has authority over navigation, maritime activities, fishing and international waterways, that power does not extend to general control of adjoining lands within states.

The court therefore declared the two sections unconstitutional to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court refused to strike down Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act. It maintained that the Federal Government retains constitutional powers over navigation and declared federal waterways, in line with its earlier decision in NIWA v. LSWA.

The court also rejected Lagos State’s request for a declaration that the National Assembly lacks legislative competence over inland waterways not specifically designated as international or interstate waterways.

One of the most significant parts of the judgment was the perpetual injunction barring the Federal Government from interfering with adjoining lands in any state for purposes not related to navigation.

The ruling is expected to have major implications for waterfront development, land reclamation, urban planning, environmental regulation, revenue generation and future disputes over federal and state control of land and waterways.

By the decision, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear constitutional line between federal powers over waterways and the authority of state governments over lands within their territories.