The interpretation of statutes is very
sacrosanct to the administration of justice. They are the tools that judges use
to read meaning to provisions of the law it that are provided for or in any
relevant statute in order to balance their decisions.
The constitutional Interpretation of
statutes is a very important issue which is not made easy due to varying
factors. One of them is that words do not usually have static meanings. the
usage of some words change with time. This then makes the interpretation of
statutes not as simple as one would think.
Also, there could be cases where the
direct interpretation of words could lead to manifest absurdity or harness of
the law. Or there could also be situations where the intention of the
legislature is not well expressed in the interpretation of statutes.
What then are these rules of
interpretation of statutes? Ordinarily, there three rules of interpretation of
statutes. They are:
• The Literal rule
• The Golden rule
• The Mischief rule
The
Literal Rule
This rule provides that where the
judiciary is faced with the interpretation of statutes, the ordinary
grammatical meaning of the word should be applied. There should be no addition,
subtraction or extension of the meanings. It should be the way it was provided
by the legislature.
However, if this rule is followed to the
latter, there would be some problems. For example, some words change their
meaning over time. Thus if a statute is interpreted literally, the meaning of
the word when the legislature used it could be different from the meaning when
it is interpreted. Also, there is the problem of words with multiple meanings.
The use of this rule is so narrow and less expansive which makes it difficult
to create room for solutions that will guide future occurrences of similar
situations.
In the case of R vs Bangaza, the supreme court was faced with the problem of interpreting
the provisions of S.319 (2) of the criminal code 1954. In this case, the
literal rule was applied to the extreme. This is due to the fact that the Supreme
Court interpreted the provision of the law to mean that age of liability is the
age of conviction and not the age of commission. Thus, the accused that was
charged for murder was given capital punishment even though the crime was
committed before he attained the age of majority. Also, in the case of
Adegbenro vs Akintola the judicial committee of the privy council interpreted
the provisions of S.33(10) of the Western region constitution which provided
that the premier could remove the governor if it seemed to him that he no
longer commanded the loyalty of majority of house members. The Privy Council
ruled that the way by which he comes to this conclusion is only by what he
determines. Even if it was in the form of a dream or vision it would still be
valid according to the provision of the constitution.
It should be noted that in these two
above mentioned cases the provisions of the law which were controversial were
later amended to remove the absurdity. This goes to show that the way of
controlling misinterpretation of legislation through the literal rule is by
amending the provisions of the statute. it should also be noted that this rule
is usually applied where the provisions of the law are clear and unambiguous.
The
Golden Rule
The golden rule was formulated in the
case of Beck vs Smith where it was provided that the literal interpretation of
a statute should be used only to the extent that it would not produce absurdity
or negate from the intention of the legislature. If the literal interpretation
of the statute were to produce absurdity, then the intention of the legislature
should be applied.
The golden rule was applied in the case
of Council of University of Ibadan vs Adamolekun where the court had to
interpret the provision of S.3 (4) of the constitution (suspension and
modification decree) of 1966 which states that where an edict is in conflict
with a decree, the edict is to become void to the extent of its inconsistency
with the decree. However, in S.6 it was provided that no question as to the
validity of a decree or edict was to be entertained in a court. The court ruled
that it would lead to absurdity to literally interpret the provision of S.6 due
to the fact that if it did, how then would it be able to enforce the provisions
of S.3(4). Thus, the edict was held to be voided by the provisions of S.3(4).
The
Mischief Rule
This rule means that in the
interpretation of statute, the court should determine the mischief which the
legislature intended to correct in the legislation by going into a voyage of
discovery to determine the history of the legislation. However, it should be
noted that not all legislations is made to correct a mischief. Also, how deep
should the judges go in making a voyage of discovery? It would be difficult if
the particular judge is not well versed in history.
In Akerele vs Inspector general of
police, the court was faced with the interpretation of the meaning of the word
“accuse” in S.210 (b) of the criminal code 1948. It rejected the argument per
Ademola J (as he then was) that the word meant swearing under oath. He said
that by going into a short history of that section, its intention was to
prohibit the practice of indiscriminate accusations of witchcraft and trial by
ordeal.
The
Ejus Dem Generis Rule
This rule means that when a general word
or term is used alongside a specific word or term, the meaning of the general
word should be in line with the specific words. For example, where the law uses
“… cats, dogs, goats, chickens and other animals of such kind”. The meaning of
“other animals” should be domestic animals because the specific words used were
domestic animals.
Why
Are Statutes Interpreted?
• To be able to enforce the law.
• To avoid the miscarriage of justice which
could be the case if statutes are wrongly interpreted?
Click to Save or and to Print this Article for free
This was super super helpful. Thank you so much! From a tired Bar I student ��
ReplyDelete