Supreme Court Redefines Federal Powers, Voids Key NIWA Act Provisions In Landmark Federalism Judgment
The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment redefining the balance of powers between the Federal Government and state governments, ruling that key provisions of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act are unconstitutional and reaffirming the authority of states over land within their territories.
The apex court, in its judgment delivered on May 22, 2026, in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025 between the Attorney-General of Lagos State and the Attorney-General of the Federation alongside the attorneys-general of the 36 states, struck down Sections 12 and 13 of the NIWA Act, holding that the National Assembly exceeded its constitutional powers by granting NIWA authority over land adjoining inland waterways.
The judgment followed a suit filed by the Lagos State Government, which challenged both the administration of the NIWA Act and a July 2, 2025 press statement issued by the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation claiming federal control over shoreline setbacks, land reclamation, planning approvals and coastal areas within Lagos and other states.
Before hearing the substantive case, the Supreme Court dismissed several preliminary objections raised by the Federal Government and some state governments. The Federal Government had argued that the matter had already been settled in an earlier Supreme Court judgment delivered in January 2024 involving the National Inland Waterways Authority and the Lagos State Waterways Authority.
The apex court rejected that argument, explaining that while the 2024 decision dealt with issues relating to shipping licences and the regulation of waterways, the present case focused on the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the NIWA Act. It also ruled that the dispute fell within its original jurisdiction because it concerned the constitutionality of a federal law affecting the territorial rights of states.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice John Inyang Okoro Garba upheld Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act, maintaining that they had already been settled by the court’s earlier decision. However, the court declared Sections 12 and 13 unconstitutional, stating that they unlawfully extended NIWA’s powers beyond navigation matters into land administration.
The court held that the National Assembly’s legislative authority under Item 36(b) of the Exclusive Legislative List is limited to maritime shipping and navigation and does not include general control of land, shoreline development, reclamation, zoning or commercial land administration.
It further ruled that land administration remains the exclusive responsibility of state governments under the Land Use Act, stressing that governors retain control over all land within their respective states. Consequently, the Federal Government cannot rely on navigation laws to exercise ownership or regulatory powers over adjoining land for purposes unrelated to navigation.
In another major aspect of the judgment, the Supreme Court declared the Lands (Title Vesting, etc.) Act unconstitutional, noting that the legislation had already been nullified by the Federal High Court in the Elegushi Chieftaincy v. Federal Military Government case. The court ruled that the Federal Government could no longer rely on the law to claim ownership of state lands.
The court also declared unconstitutional the July 2, 2025 press statement issued by the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation asserting federal control over shoreline development and planning approvals. It further granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from interfering with state land administration, shoreline development and planning approvals beyond powers granted under the Constitution.
Although the lead judgment upheld Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act, six justices — Agim, Uwa, Tsammani, Adah, Umar and Idris — delivered partly dissenting opinions, arguing that those sections should also have been declared unconstitutional because their validity had not been conclusively determined in the 2024 judgment. They maintained that federal legislative authority only extends to waterways designated as international or interstate under the Constitution.
Legal analysts say the judgment is expected to have significant implications for real estate development, infrastructure projects and financing involving waterfront properties. Developers with permits issued solely by NIWA may now need to regularise their titles with relevant state authorities, while banks and financial institutions may also have to review collateral documentation involving shoreline assets to ensure compliance with state land administration laws.
The ruling is also expected to reshape federal-state relations by reinforcing the constitutional limits of federal authority over inland waterways and reaffirming the exclusive powers of state governments over land within their territories. It applies not only to the Lagos State suit but also to two related cases filed by the Attorneys-General of Bayelsa State and Lagos State, which were consolidated with the main action before the Supreme Court.