A Lagos Metropolitan news analysis
The spark
Senior lawyer and former Lagos commissioner Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN, writing in his column in The Sun, argues that recent federal advertorials claiming control over shoreline lands and mandating “recertification” of titles are unconstitutional overreach triggered by President Tinubu’s May 31 commissioning remarks on the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway. He says the President only urged preservation of a 50-metre setback and coordination with the Surveyor-General—not a federal takeover of state planning powers.
Who is Muiz Banire—and why he matters
Banire is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, ex-Lagos Commissioner (Special Duties, Transport, Environment), former APC National Legal Adviser, and former AMCON board chair—with a PhD in property law. His background gives his intervention weight in the intersection of land, planning, and federalism.
What actually changed lately
- Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF) posted notices saying: “All approvals on the setbacks already given stand revoked” and that enforcement now covers federal highways, shorelines, the coastal road and the lagoon. Follow-on reports amplified demolition warnings and demanded submission of prior approvals for “verification, harmonisation and compilation.”
- Housing Ministry statements/coverage urged waterfront property owners (e.g., Banana Island, Lekki waterfront) to “regularise” ownership and signalled tighter federal oversight.
- The President’s commissioning speech stressed no building on setbacks and pushed liaison with OSGOF and the Works Ministry before approvals near federal roads—a genuine coordination message, but not a blanket federal planning power.
The law—what the courts have actually said
- NIWA v. LASWA (Supreme Court, 5 Jan 2024): affirms federal authority over inland waterways regulation (navigable waterways/transport), the crux of which is not the ownership of abutting land or general state planning control. Banire’s point that this case is being stretched to land-title control is largely supported by legal analyses.
- AG Lagos v. AG Federation (Supreme Court, 2003): held urban and regional planning is a state matter (residual), limiting federal intrusion into planning approvals within states.
- Elegushi & Ors v. AG Federation (2000): struck down the 1993 decree that tried to vest federal title over lands within 100 m of the shoreline, a precedent often cited against blanket federal claims to “waterfront belts.”
Bottom line on law: The 2024 NIWA case doesn’t by itself hand Abuja sweeping ownership of shoreline lands; 2003 and 2000 authorities still bolster states’ primacy on planning approvals and cut against wholesale federal vesting of coastal setback lands. That makes OSGOF’s broad “revocation” posture legally contestable.
Why this matters (market & governance)
The “all-approvals-revoked/suspend-new-approvals” drumbeat has injected uncertainty into Lagos’ prime real-estate corridors—risking project delays, financing jitters, and potential losses—even as the federal side cites safety and corridor protection. Investors and valuers are already flagging confidence risks and urging due process.
What Banire gets right—and where questions remain
Strongly grounded:
- Overbreadth of federal notices relative to Supreme Court precedents on state planning control.
- Misreading NIWA v. LASWA as a land-title or general planning case.
- OSGOF’s sweeping revocation claims exceed any publicly verifiable presidential directive.
Open questions:
- Did the President (or FEC) subsequently ratify any national-corridor policy that lawfully centralises shoreline approvals? None is publicly gazetted as of now; reports remain administrative statements and advertorials.
- Banire says he personally briefed the President who “denounced” the directives; that claim isn’t independently verifiable in public records. (We found no official rebuttal from the Presidency disowning OSGOF’s notices.)
What Lagos (and property owners) should watch
- Any formal circular from the Presidency/SGF clarifying the scope of setbacks and who exactly approves what along the coastal and lagoon corridors.
- Litigation: Expect court actions testing OSGOF’s authority to revoke past approvals or suspend state C-of-O processes on shoreline lands.
- NIWA–OSGOF coordination: How waterways control (federal) interfaces with planning approvals (state) without freezing investment.
- Market impacts: Banks, pension funds, and developers will price-in regulatory risk until the legal lane-lines are restated.
What we think
- The President’s coordination message was defensible; the implementation via sweeping revocation threats is not. It conflates navigation/waterways control with land-title and planning—areas where the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed state competence. Abuja should publish a narrow, lawful protocol: define the right-of-way/setback width, require project-specific federal concurrence only where federal assets (e.g., the highway right-of-way, NIWA channels) are directly implicated, and leave general planning approvals to Lagos.
- For Lagos, the prudent course is to maintain approvals under state law, add a federal-coordination check where the corridor demonstrably overlaps federal assets, and jointly issue guidance with OSGOF to de-risk transactions pending a court pronouncement.
Fact-check snapshot
- Did Tinubu order a blanket federal takeover? No public record says so; he pressed setback enforcement and liaison.
- Do federal notices claim revocation/suspension powers over shoreline titles? Yes—in OSGOF posts and press reports. Those claims are contested.
- Does the 2024 NIWA case hand Abuja title to shoreline lands? No—it addresses waterways regulation, not general land ownership or state planning.
- Do Supreme Court precedents back state planning control? Yes (2003), and the 2000 Elegushi case undercuts federal mass-vesting of shoreline lands.
