The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark constitutional judgement limiting the federal government’s powers over lands adjoining inland waterways across the country, declaring portions of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act unconstitutional.

In a major victory for Lagos State in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, the apex court held that Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act are invalid to the extent that they empower the federal government to regulate and control lands adjoining waterways for purposes unrelated to navigation, maritime activities and fishing.

In addition to Lagos, other states that joined the suit against the federal government were Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Ogun, Cross River, Kaduna, Enugu, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Benue, Rivers, Osun, Oyo and Anambra.

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

The court affirmed that state governments retain constitutional authority over adjoining lands used for non-navigational purposes, thereby restricting the federal government and the NIWA from exercising sweeping control over such areas.

The seven-member panel of the court, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, also issued 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.

The matter was determined by a panel comprising 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.

Although the court was unanimous on most issues, 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 decision, maintaining that Lagos State ought to have succeeded on additional reliefs relating to 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 empowering the federal government and NIWA to exercise control over 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.

Lagos also maintained that the federal government lacked constitutional authority to regulate lands adjoining waterways 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 delving into the substantive issues, the Supreme Court first considered preliminary objections filed by the federal government and other defendants challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The objections were dismissed for lacking merit.

The court subsequently proceeded to determine the constitutional questions raised in the suit.

One of the key issues addressed by the court was whether the case had already been settled in the earlier dispute between NIWA and the Lagos State Waterways Authority (LSWA).

The defendants had argued that the doctrine of res judicata applied because the issues had 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 therefore not barred.

That finding cleared the way for 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 went beyond the constitutional powers granted to the National Assembly.

The apex court ruled that while the federal government possesses 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 held 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 court specifically held that 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.