INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

 CONTENTS

1.0       Introduction

2.0       Objectives

• Main
• Canons of Interpretation
• Why Statues generate Arguments?

3.5       Interpretation of the Constitution

4.0       Conclusion

5.0       Summary

6.0       Tutor Marked Assignment

7.0       References / Further Reading

INTRODUCTION

In English law, the principal sources of legal rules are status and precedents (the case law). Whereas precedence is guidance by example, statutes are guidance by precept. Statutes generally come in a clear set of words. The principle of parliamentary draft is certainty, thus statutes are to be as certain as possible. After all, law ought to be certain.

The Supreme Court in Awolowo Vs Shagari laid down the following principles for the interpretation of statutes, in the following words:

A statute should always be looked at as a whole

Words used in a statute are to be read according to their meaning as popularly understood at the time the statutes became law, a statute is presumed not to alter existing law beyond that necessarily required by the statute. It is necessary to emphasize that a decision on the interpretation of one statute generally cannot constitute a binding precedent with regard to the interpretation of another. The concept of legal reasoning through judicial process as best explained in this unit. The power to interpret statutes is a constitutional right vested in the courts by section b of the 1999 constitution.

OBJECTIVES

In this unit, you will be able to know the following:

1. The meaning of statutes
2. The importance of statutes

• The arguments behind statutes

1. Canons of interpretation
2. Interpretation of the Constitution, etc.

MAIN CONTENT

• Canons of interpretation

There are three main canons of interpretation of statutes. They are:

1. The literary rule,
2. The mischief rule, and

• The golden rule
  1. The Literary Rule:-

This is also referred to as the ordinary rule, the primary rule or the plain rule. This canon of interpretation is the first and most commonly used. It is the most important of statutes. It states that where the words used are clear and unambiguous the  courts should apply the ordinary meaning of the words as used in reaching a decision. In William V. Akintude, the learned justice of the then Court of Appeal, How Justice Pats Acholomu, agrees that: In determining either the general object of the legislation or the meaning of its language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice, and legal principles should in all cases of doubtful significance be presumed to be the true one.

Justifying the dictum above, His Lordship observed that expedience and prudence will help in understanding the character of an enactment. The Courts are not to defeat the plain meaning of an enactment by introducing their own words into the enactment as was wrongly done in Okumagba V. Egbe. Even when words are used in the technical sense, it must be construed in its ordinary technical sense. For example, “call to bar” or “bar and bench”. These words have acquired technical meanings and shall be interpreted in their ordinary technical meanings.

In the popular case of Akintola Vs Adegbenro, the Privy Council applying the ordinary meaning of S. 33 (10) of the constitution of Western Nigeria echoed that where the words are dear and unambiguous the literal interpretation must be adopted.

The mischief Rule

In the course of interpretation of statutes judges express their own opinions as to social policy and these opinions do not always command universal assent. If by any chance the literary rule or interpretation leads to ambiguity, then the intention of the parliament must be sought. This bids the judges to look at the law as it was before the Act being interpreted and the mischief which statute was intended to remedy. The Act is then construed to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The Heydon’s case has been described as the root or origin of the mischief rule. The aim of the mischief rule is to ascertain how and why the statute being construed to have cured the defect in the common law or previous statute. This is done by following a logical order prescribed in the Heydon’s case, that is to say:

1. What was the common law or statute law before the Act being construed was passed?
2. What was the mischief or defect for which the common law or statute did not provide?

• What remedy has the legislation resolved and appointed to cure?

1. What was the true reason or the remedy?

The court after due consideration of the above proposition is duty bound to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. In Ibekwe V. Machuka, Justice Mohammed quoting Akpata JCA in Adeleji V. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd, expressed the attitude of courts as follows:

In pursuance of the principles that law should serve public interest, the courts have evolved the technique of construction in bonam partein. One of the principles evolved from such construction in the interpretation of statutes is that no one should be allowed to benefit from his own wrong. The effect is usually that the literal meaning of the enactment is departed from where it would result in wrongful self-benefit.

Aniagolu JSC cited with approval the principles in Heydon’s case (Supra) in Ifezue V. Mbadugha, when he said;

To properly ascertain the mischief aimed at by legislation, it is sometimes helpful to look into the history of the legislation. In construing a statutory provision, which is ambiguous, preference should be given to the view, which would not lead to public mischief.

Therefore, the practical utility of the mischief rule depends to some extent upon the means, which the courts are entitled to employ in order to ascertain the mischief, which was intended to remedy. Such exploration will require a true historical investigation, press agitation, party conferences, government pronouncements and debates. In applying the mischief rule, the judiciary must not invent fancied ambiguities.

The Golden Rule:

At times in the interpretation of the literal rule the intention of the legislators cannot be reached. The literal interpretation here leads to absurdity. The courts in such situations allow themselves to construe a statute in such a way as to produce a reasonable result even though this involves departing from the prima facie meaning of the words. Generally, an interpretation to avoid absurdity is called the golden rule.

In Bronik Motors Ltd., V. Wema Bank Ltd, Idigbe. JSC considering the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court under S.230, his Lordship said that,

Words in an enactment are used in their ordinary and primary meaning or in their common or popular sense in which they would have been understood the day after unless such interpretation or construction would lead to mischief absurdity. Therefore, through this rule, an inapplicable statute becomes applicable by removing the character of absurdity from the contents of the statute

Why Statutes Generate Arguments?

H.L.A. Hart has hinted that rules generate fresh looking in the face of application. This is precisely because, drafters are not very aware of the full range of factual situations where the rule will apply, yet the rule’s auto-application must be set.

There is relevant indeterminacy of aim. We are not quite sure what we want to do in certain circumstances; hence we may be in the state of relative ignorance of fact and indeterminacy of aim. Human language, for necessarily ambiguous. English language, for example, is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Yet the draftsman will seek precision even though language does not admit of it. Thus, there is an intrinsic indeterminacy of language. However, the context of a case gives us a clue on what to do

1. But a statute is frequently stripped of its context. Until very recently, contexts of statutes were forbidden.

Therefore, one of the qualities of good law is clarity. The English legislative mind is rather very detailed in drafting statutes, for law is ordinarily designed so that folks would know what to expect. Statutes need to be interpreted, hence Legisprudence of the jurisprudence or interpretation statutes.

Interpretation of the Constitution:-

It is also the primary duty of the court to interpret the constitution in doing this onerous task, along the same line of interpreting. Statutes, the courts should not allow mere technical rules of interpretation to defeat the principles of government entrenched therein. In Bronik Motors, ltd. V. Wema Bank ltd (Spra), it was clearly stated “the constitution is a living document (not just a statute) providing a frame work for the governance of a country not only for now but for generations yet unborn. In construing it, undue regard should not be paid to merely technical rules, for otherwise the objects of its framers would be frustrated. However, whenever the issue of wide or narrow interpretation should be favoured, the court as much as possible should adopt the wide interpretation, unless such approach will work obvious hardship. In the main, the courts should be liberal in the interpretation of the constitution.

In Rabise V. State, the court was reminded to always bear in mind that the constitution itself is a mechanism under which laws are to be made by the legislature and not merely as an Act, which declares what the law is.

The court must not be oblivious of the history of the constitution, the law and the legislations. The sections of the constitution must be read as a whole and the provisions of related sections read together. The Supreme Court in Attorney General of Bendel state V. Attorney General of the Federation laid down the principles, which the court must bear in mind while interpreting the constitution as follows:

1. Effect should be given to every word
2. A Construction nullifying a specific clause will not be given to the constitution unless absolutely required by the context

• A constitutional power cannot be used by way of construction to attain unconstitutional result.

1. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an organic scheme of government to be dealt within it’s entirely, a particular provision cannot be severed from the rest of the Constitution
2. While the language of the Constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it is designed to yield new and fuller import to its meaning.
3. A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Explain your understanding of the interpretation of the Constitution. Why are Statutes generating arguments?

CONCLUSION

When the legislature makes the law, they intend that it will bring order, peace and justice in the society. Unfortunately when these legislations are enacted, they carry with them that characteristic human imperfect quality. This causes some of the legislations to carry on the face of it certain meaning not originally intended by the legislature. It is in the cause of interpretation of statutes that judges dissent in opinion, or superior courts disagree with the decisions of the lower courts, or courts over-rule or distinguish earlier decisions or even litigants go on appeal.

SUMMARY

The law, it is said, must be certain. Again, one need to balance the concepts of certainty and justice. The more certain the law is, the less just it seems to become, if we make our law absolutely certain, the narrower it applies. But if qualifications are introduced into law, it becomes less certain. Therefore, legal justice is dealing with a case in its individuality. Hence, individualized judgment is a particular application of justice. But the more one does this, the more one moves away from treating like cases alike.

TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. The best interpretation of law is that law is an interpretative practice.
2. Should judges try to interpret statutes in a way that is faithful to the intention of the legislator?

• List the three main canons of interpretation

REFERENCE / FURTHER READING

Akintunde, A.K.R., (1960) The Nigerian legal system, Owerri, Spectrum Law Publishing.

Ese Melami, (1999) Outline of Nigerian Legal System, Lagos, Grace Publishers Inc.

Njoku Francis, O.C., (2007) Studies In Jurisprudence – A Fundamental Approach to the Philosophy of law, Owerri, Claretian Theologate.

Unabue U.S.F., (2004) Law and Legal Process, Abuja, Global Press Ltd.