By Eugene Itua
Introduction
The Legal Business section of BusinessDay (April 2, 2026) features an analysis by Banwo & Ighodalo on a landmark Court of Appeal decision delivered on February 25, 2026. In the case of Strickland Services Limited v. Akwa Ibom State Internal Revenue Service & Anor (Appeal No. CA/C/54/2024), the court nullified the Akwa Ibom State Maritime Sector (Regulation) Law, 2017. This ruling set aside a previous Federal High Court decision and reaffirmed the National Assembly’s exclusive legislative authority over maritime matters.
Understanding the Judgment
- State vs. Federal Jurisdiction
The central issue was whether a state government could legislate maritime operations within its coastline. Akwa Ibom State had demanded $240,000 in levies from Strickland Services Limited. The Court of Appeal ruled that because shipping and navigation on inland and coastal waterways are on the Exclusive Legislative List, the state lacked the constitutional power to regulate or tax these activities.
- Grounds for Nullification
- The state law entered territory reserved solely for the National Assembly (Jurisdictional Encroachment).
- Comprehensive federal legislation already exists, making state intervention a violation of constitutional boundaries (Existing Federal Framework).
- The Akwa Ibom State Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction over maritime criminal proceedings; such matters belong strictly to the Federal High Court (Revenue Court Limitations).
- Judicial Precedent
The decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in NIWA & Ors v. LASWA & Ors (2024). It reinforces a legal trend that prevents state governments from extending regulatory reach into federally controlled sectors under the guise of revenue generation.
Strategic Implications for Sustainability and the Green Economy
This judgment serves as a definitive roadmap for environmental governance and sustainable development in Nigeria’s maritime zones. For stakeholders in the green economy, the ruling offers the following strategic shifts:
- Centralisation of Environmental Standards
By reaffirming exclusive federal power, the court has established that any “Green Shipping” initiatives or carbon-emission standards for vessels must be pursued through federal agencies such as NIMASA or NIWA. State-level green levies or environmental fees on maritime traffic are now likely unconstitutional and unenforceable. Advocacy for cleaner energy in shipping is now a “one-stop” conversation with the Federal Government.
- Streamlining SDG and ESG Compliance
The ruling significantly reduces “governance noise” for the private sector. Companies in the maritime, oil, and gas industries no longer need to navigate 36 different sets of state-level environmental regulations. This enables a more unified application of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards through a single federal compliance framework.
- Clarifying Operational Boundaries
The judgment defines a clear “playing field” for sustainability projects by marking where state authority ends and federal authority begins. Sustainability work must now respect the strict boundary between land-based state jurisdiction (e.g., waste management at the docks) and water-based federal jurisdiction (e.g., vessel-source pollution and offshore environmental protection).
- Opportunity for Unified Policy Advocacy
It is far more efficient to implement high-level sustainability standards across a single federal agency than to negotiate with multiple littoral states. Stakeholders can now advocate for a singular “National Green Maritime Policy”, ensuring that sustainability efforts are consistent across all Nigerian coastal waters.
Summary of the strategic shift in governance
The table below illustrates how the “Blue Economy” landscape has changed for all stakeholders.
| Category | Pre-Judgment (Status Quo) | Post-Judgment (New Reality) |
| Legal Authority | Fragmented (State vs. Federal overlap) | Unified (Exclusive Federal) |
| Regulation Style | Complex & Inconsistent | Streamlined & National |
| Levies & Taxes | Risk of multiple state-imposed charges | Strictly Federal oversight |
| Sustainability Focus | State Ministries of Environment | Federal Agencies (NIMASA/NIWA) |
| Policy Efficiency | High “Governance Noise” | Single-point Advocacy |
| Legal Risk | High (Double taxation/conflict) | Lower (Clearer jurisdictional lines) |
Strategic impact analysis
The nullification of the Akwa Ibom State maritime laws directly shifts the strategy for implementing green growth in Nigeria’s coastal zones:
- “Green Shipping” or carbon-emission standards must be pursued through federal agencies to be legally enforceable (Environmental Standards).
- For private sector operators, the compliance burden is legally streamlined, eliminating the need to navigate redundant state regulations (Compliance Certainty).
- Sustainability efforts must strictly distinguish between land-based state mandates (port-side facilities) and water-based federal mandates (vessel operations) (Operational Boundaries).
Conclusion
This ruling significantly simplifies the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) framework in Nigeria. It confirms that the “Blue Economy” is primarily a federal mandate rather than a state one. Moving forward, the focus for policy advocates and industry leaders must shift toward engaging federal legislators and regulators to ensure that exclusive powers are exercised in alignment with the broader Green Economy and sustainability agenda.
By Dr Eugene Itua, Executive Director, African Green Economy and Sustainability Institute
