Blue Economy
Supreme Court Strips NIWA of Powers Over Waterfront Lands in States
Supreme Court Strips NIWA of Powers Over Waterfront Lands in States
Apex court voids Sections 12 and 13 of NIWA Act, issues perpetual injunction against federal government in landmark Lagos-led constitutional suit
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News | Lagos, 24 May 2026
Nigeria’s apex court has redrawn the constitutional boundaries of federal authority over inland waterways in a ruling that carries sweeping implications for waterfront development, land administration, port hinterland management, and urban planning across the country’s coastal and riverine states.
In a landmark judgment delivered on Friday in Suit No. SC/CV/541/2025, the Supreme Court held that Sections 12 and 13 of the National Inland Waterways Authority (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.
The case, brought by Lagos State under the court’s original jurisdiction, drew in a broad coalition of Nigerian states seeking relief from what they characterised as decades of unconstitutional federal overreach into state territories. Joining Lagos in the suit 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 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 Ruling
The seven-member panel of the court, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, 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. Justice Abubakar Sadiq 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, maintaining that Lagos State ought to have succeeded on additional reliefs relating to federal control over waterways.
At the heart of Lagos State’s argument was the contention that the National Assembly had exceeded its constitutional mandate. The state argued 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. Lagos further argued that the federal government could not validly exercise powers over inland waterways not designated as international or interstate waterways, and that it lacked constitutional authority to regulate lands adjoining waterways for non-navigational purposes.
Before proceeding to the substance of the case, the Supreme Court first considered and dismissed preliminary objections filed by the federal government challenging its jurisdiction. The court also rejected the federal government’s argument that earlier litigation between NIWA and LASWA had already settled the matter, holding that the present suit was distinguishable from the earlier NIWA v. LSWA decision and therefore not barred by res judicata.
On the substantive constitutional questions, 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 National Assembly, it held, had acted ultra vires in attempting to regulate adjoining lands for purposes outside navigation-related activities.
What the Court Granted — and What It Did Not
The victory for Lagos and co-plaintiff states, while significant, was partial. The Supreme Court declined to invalidate Sections 10 and 11 of the NIWA Act and reaffirmed the federal government’s constitutional authority over navigation and declared federal waterways. It refused Lagos State’s requests for declarations that the National Assembly lacked legislative competence over waterways not specifically designated as international or inter-state waterways, holding that those claims had already been substantially addressed in the earlier NIWA v. LSWA decision.
In practical terms, the ruling draws a precise constitutional line: the federal government retains control over waterway navigation and designated federal routes, but can no longer use NIWA’s powers to commandeer adjoining land within states for purposes unconnected to those navigation functions.
The Road to This Judgment
This ruling comes two years after the Supreme Court’s January 2024 judgment, which had broadly affirmed federal supremacy over Nigerian inland waterways. In that earlier decision, Justice John Inyang Okoro held that NIWA is the only agency with powers to exclusively manage, direct and control all activities on navigable waters and their right-of-way throughout the country, and warned Lagos State and its agencies to stay away from regulatory activities on Nigerian inland waterways.
That 2024 ruling had emboldened federal agencies and left LASWA’s revenue collection and ferry licensing operations in legal limbo. The latest judgment does not reverse the navigational authority confirmed in 2024, but it significantly curtails NIWA’s ability to extend its administrative reach into waterfront lands — a distinction with enormous practical consequences for Lagos’s waterfront economy.
Implications for the Waterways Sector
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. It is also expected to shape future constitutional litigation on waterways, land administration, federalism, and resource control across Nigeria.
For operators in Lagos — ferry services, boat operators, terminal developers, dredging companies, and waterfront property holders — the ruling provides meaningful clarity on a regulatory environment that has long been characterised by overlapping federal and state authority. The perpetual injunction against federal interference in non-navigational waterfront land activity removes a persistent source of regulatory risk for investment and development projects.
The broader question of whether LASWA can now reassert licensing and revenue collection powers over intra-state ferry services remains unresolved by this judgment, which stopped short of revisiting the navigational jurisdiction question settled in 2024.
Nigeria Watch: A Waterways News Analysis
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling is both a constitutional clarification and a commercial signal. For years, the NIWA-LASWA standoff paralysed investment decisions across Lagos’s waterfront corridor — from the creeks of Makoko to the emerging terminals along the Lekki shoreline. Developers, ferry operators, and infrastructure investors were caught between two regulatory authorities, each claiming jurisdiction and each capable of disrupting operations.
The court has now surgically divided that disputed territory: federal authority governs the water and what moves on it; state authority governs the land beside it, at least where the purpose is not navigation. That distinction is not merely academic. It determines who approves waterfront reclamation projects, who collects ground rents on jetty facilities, who authorises mixed-use developments along canal corridors, and ultimately who benefits from the economic value that water access creates in a megacity of more than 20 million people.
For Nigeria’s other coastal and riverine states — from Rivers to Bayelsa to Akwa Ibom — the perpetual injunction granted by the Supreme Court offers similar relief. Governors of those states will now have a far stronger constitutional basis to develop and commercialise their own waterfront lands without federal encroachment under the guise of NIWA’s enabling legislation.
The Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy and NIWA will need to recalibrate their operational mandates accordingly. The ministry’s ambitions for blue economy expansion depend on an efficient, investment-friendly waterways environment — and continued legal friction with state governments has historically been among the biggest obstacles to that goal.
This ruling, properly understood, is an opportunity as much as a constraint.
Oyetola Woos Turkish Investors for Fisheries Sector, Vows to Protect Artisanal Fishers
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News
The Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Dr Adegboyega Oyetola, has thrown Nigeria’s fisheries sector open to Turkish investment, insisting that any fresh capital coming into the industry must strengthen and not sideline the millions of Nigerians who depend on artisanal fishing for a living.
Oyetola made the pledge while receiving a delegation from Turkish fisheries and aquaculture firm CRD Impex, led by the company’s General Manager for Fisheries, Cem Tarhan, at his Abuja office. He told the investors the Federal Government was ready to create an investment-friendly climate for credible local and foreign players willing to bring capital, technology and modern value-chain solutions to the sector, on condition that such investment remains inclusive.
“We welcome investors who can bring capital, technology, expertise and modern value-chain solutions to the sector. However, investment must be inclusive and sustainable. It must complement and empower our artisanal fish producers, not undermine their livelihoods,” the Minister said
He listed inadequate infrastructure, poor access to modern fishing technology, weak cold-chain systems, limited processing and storage capacity, and gaps in market access as the major constraints holding back the sector, framing each as an opening for targeted investment rather than a dead end.
The Turkish team, which included CRD Impex founder Hanefi Cardak and Tetra Underwater Services founder Ersun Buyukgoze, toured key fisheries and aquaculture points around the country to size up the terrain first-hand. Stops included the Kirikiri Lighter Terminal in Lagos, the Ozumba Mbadiwe Fish Market in Lekki, and the Esuk Nsidung Beach Market, a major waterfront seafood hub in Calabar, Cross River State.
The Ministry described the visit as part of a broader push to attract serious investment into Nigeria’s blue economy while keeping the welfare of artisanal fishers central to that growth.
Nigeria Watch
The Turkish courtesy call lands squarely in the pattern this desk has tracked all year: big-ticket investment pledges for Nigeria’s waterways, paired with familiar assurances that the small operator won’t be crowded out. The test, as always, is what happens after the photo-op.
Nigeria’s artisanal fishing communities occupy the same economic space as the informal boat operators represented by WABOTAN and ATBOWATON, river- and creek-dependent Nigerians whose livelihoods rise or fall on decisions made far from the waterfront. The infrastructure gaps Oyetola cited which include, weak cold-chain systems, poor storage and limited market access, all mirror the exact complaints this desk has documented from inland waterway operators for years but modernisation announced from Abuja rarely reache the jetties.
Turkish capital chasing Nigerian fisheries and aquaculture is a genuinely new thread, distinct from the Strait of Hormuz shipping story or the CVFF disbursement saga this desk has followed closely. But the underlying question is the same one that has defined Oyetola’s tenure at the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy: will “inclusive investment” translate into contracts, cooperative partnerships and cold-chain infrastructure that artisanal operators can actually use or will it, like so many blue-economy pledges before it, stall at the courtesy-visit stage?
Waterways News will be watching for the first concrete CRD Impex commitment — site, timeline, or local partnership — as the marker of whether this one is different.
NPERA, NPA Open Technical Talks on Handover of Inland Dry Port Functions
By Ighoyota Onaibre | Waterways News
The Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) have begun formal engagement on transferring inland dry port oversight to NPERA, marking the start of what both agencies describe as a critical phase in operationalising Nigeria’s new port regulatory framework.
At a management-level meeting between the two agencies, officials focused on the technical groundwork for the handover, chiefly how to draw clear lines of responsibility and avoid duplication among the government bodies with a stake in inland dry port administration.
NPERA’s Director-General/CEO, Dr Akutah Pius, framed the transition as flowing directly from the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Dr Adegboyega Oyetola, whom he credited with steering the process toward the sector’s broader development. Akutah was emphatic that NPERA could not carry out the transfer alone, and said the buy-in of every relevant stakeholder agency would be needed to see it through.
He indicated that the Ministry would stay central to coordinating the process even as specific mandates move to the agencies best placed to execute them. Akutah also pointed to the Minister’s earlier interventions during the NPERA Bill’s passage through the National Assembly, which he said had defused inter-agency friction and set the stage for the cooperation now underway.
Describing the purpose of the meeting, Akutah said it was meant to formally kick off the transfer of inland dry port responsibilities to NPERA in fulfilment of its statutory role as economic regulator of the ports sector. He singled out Section 51 of the NPERA Act as a provision that now needs to be put into practical effect to keep the transition orderly and ensure stakeholder roles are properly aligned.
To manage the process going forward, the NPERA boss proposed setting up a joint committee drawing in NPERA, NPA, the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), and the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy. He argued that inland dry ports matter well beyond the coastline. They extend maritime sector benefits into Nigeria’s hinterland and reinforce the country’s trade and logistics chain.
Responding on behalf of NPA, Managing Director Dr Abubakar Dantsoho welcomed the move and pledged his agency’s full operational and technical backing throughout the transition. He said the process had started on the right footing, and that NPA would furnish updated data on the current state of inland dry ports to inform further discussions, expressing confidence that continued engagement would help the agencies meet their shared objectives.
NPA’s Executive Director, Engr. Lekan Badmus, also commended NPERA for setting the collaboration in motion, calling the meeting a solid first step toward a smooth integration. He noted the two agencies have now moved into the technical phase of the exercise, with close attention being paid to eliminating overlapping functions.
Closing the meeting, Akutah said the proposed joint committee would reconvene with the Minister to seek further guidance and agree on next steps to keep the transition on track.
Nigeria Watch
This meeting is the first visible test of whether the NPERA Act’s promise of a rationalised port regulatory architecture can survive contact with Nigeria’s crowded agency landscape. Section 51’s transfer of inland dry port functions to NPERA looks straightforward on paper; in practice, it touches NPA’s traditional port administration turf, NIWA’s inland waterways mandate, and the Ministry’s coordinating role all at once, precisely the kind of overlapping jurisdiction that has bedevilled reform efforts elsewhere in the sector, most visibly in the long-running NIWA-LASWA tussle that only the Supreme Court could settle.
The proposed joint committee of NPERA, NPA, NIWA, and the Ministry, is a sensible mechanism, but Waterways News readers who have followed the CVFF disbursement saga know that Nigerian maritime governance has no shortage of well-designed committees whose outputs never quite reach implementation. What will matter is whether Akutah’s “technical phase” produces a binding timeline, not another round of goodwill statements.
For inland dry port operators and the hinterland trade corridors that depend on them, the stakes are practical: unclear jurisdiction between NPA and NPERA has historically meant slower cargo evacuation, duplicated levies, and uncertainty for freight forwarders planning routes away from the congested Lagos ports. If this transition is handled well, it strengthens the case for dry ports as genuine pressure valves for Apapa and Tin Can. If it stalls in inter-agency turf negotiation, it becomes one more entry in the gap between policy pronouncement and delivery that this desk continues to track.
Worth watching: whether Minister Oyetola’s office sets an explicit deadline when the committee reconvenes, and whether NIWA, whose inland waterways mandate intersects with dry port hinterland connectivity, gets more than a seat at the table.
Two More Tankers Struck in Strait of Hormuz as Attack Count Hits Five in a Week
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News
Two more tankers have been hit while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, leaving two seafarers with minor injuries and pushing the number of reported attacks or security incidents against commercial vessels in the waterway to at least five since 16 September.
The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said an inbound tanker was struck by an unidentified projectile on Monday. Two crew members sustained minor injuries, but the vessel stayed under its own power and continued to its next port, with no environmental impact reported.
Hours later, UKMTO issued a second alert after an outbound LPG tanker reported being struck by debris from unknown projectiles. All crew were reported safe and the vessel also continued its voyage. Authorities are investigating both incidents, and UKMTO has not attributed either attack to a specific actor.
The two strikes build on a Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) advisory covering three earlier attacks between 16 and 18 September, one of which saw a tanker’s hull breached by a projectile, sparking a fire. JMIC continues to rate the threat level in the strait as “severe,” citing a high likelihood of deliberate hostile action and pointing to a pattern of harassment by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — drone overflights, surveillance of merchant vessels and VHF hailing, alongside the direct attacks.
Traffic through the chokepoint remains sharply depressed. Only 17 commodity vessels were visibly transiting over the weekend, down from 37 the week before and against a pre-war daily average of roughly 125. That figure excludes vessels sailing with their AIS transponders switched off, and JMIC notes a persistent gap between visible and actual traffic.
Nigeria Watch
For Nigerian maritime stakeholders, the Hormuz crisis is no longer a distant Gulf story. It is a cost line. Every fresh escalation feeds directly into the war-risk insurance premiums and freight rates that Nigerian importers, refiners and shipping agents ultimately absorb, since global tanker and container capacity pulled off the Hormuz route tightens supply elsewhere and pushes rates up across long-haul trades, including those serving West African ports.
The renewed attacks also sharpen the stakes around Nigeria’s push for a stronger voice at the IMO Council table and its broader blue-economy diplomacy under Minister Adegboyega Oyetola. A sustained Gulf disruption is exactly the kind of systemic shock that tests whether Nigeria’s seat translates into influence over how global shipping risk, insurance and rerouting decisions are made, rather than Nigeria simply absorbing the downstream cost.
Locally, the episode is a reminder of the layered nature of “maritime security” as a policy word: the Deep Blue Project and Gulf of Guinea security architecture address piracy and armed robbery close to home, but Nigeria’s ports and shippers remain exposed to security failures thousands of kilometres away in the Gulf.
Waterways News will continue tracking how the Hormuz situation feeds into freight cost pressure at Nigerian ports and NIMASA’s public messaging on the issue.
Oil and Gas7 months agoTantita’s Pipeline Deal: $144m Contract, Rising Output, and the Questions that Deserve Answers
- MARITIME TRADE & SHIPPING7 months ago
World’s Largest Container Ship Sets New Maritime Record with 22,233 TEUs on Single Voyage
- Blue Economy7 months ago
Nigeria’s Coast Guard Bill: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
