UNIT 8

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

Interpretation of statute refers to the process by which courts and legal practitioners explain, clarify, and give meaning to the language of statutes. Since statutes form a significant part of Nigerian law, courts are often required to interpret them to resolve ambiguities, conflicts, or gaps. The goal is to understand and apply the law as intended by the legislature. The guiding principle is expressio unius est exclusio alterius which means express mention of one thing excludes others, but courts apply different methods and rules of interpretation depending on the situation. Nigerian courts recognize a variety of rules for interpreting statutes, ensuring that justice is done and the legislative intent is respected.

PRIMARY RULE OF INTERPRETATION

1. Literal rule: Under the literal rule, courts give words their ordinary, plain, and grammatical meaning. The focus here is on the wording of the statute itself. If the words are clear and unambiguous, they should be applied as written, regardless of the outcome. See the case of Abioye v Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 190) 130 where the supreme court of Nigeria applied the literal rule, stating that where the words of a statute are clear, they must be given their natural meaning without inserting anything not present in the statute and section 18(1) of the interpretation act which states that words should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning unless the context dictates otherwise.
2. Golden rule: The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule. It is applied where the literal interpretation would lead to absurdity or an outcome that is contrary to the intention of the legislature. In such cases, courts are allowed to modify the literal meaning to avoid absurd results. See the case of Adigun v Attorney-General of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 where the court applied the golden rule to avoid an absurd interpretation of the statute, which would have led to an unjust outcome.
3. Mischief rule: This rule is applied to resolve ambiguities by focusing on the “mischief” or defect that the statute was intended to address. Courts using this rule examine the state of the law before the statute was enacted and interpret the statute in a way that remedies the defect. See the case of Amadi v NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 76 where the court used the mischief rule to determine the legislative intent behind certain provisions of the statute and to prevent the mischief the statute sought to cure and section 2(4) of the interpretation act which allows courts to use extrinsic materials, such as explanatory notes or reports, to understand the purpose behind a statute, further supporting the application of the mischief rule.
4. Purposive rule: The purposive rule goes beyond the literal or grammatical meaning of words and looks at the broader purpose or intent of the legislature. It is often used in cases where the literal or golden rules do not provide a satisfactory outcome, and the court needs to consider the legislative aim. See the case of A-G Federation v Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 where the supreme court adopted a purposive approach to interpret the constitution and ensure that the interpretation aligned with the overarching purpose of the statute.

SECONDARY RULES OF INTERPRETATION

1. Ejusdem generis rule: This rule states that where general words follow specific ones in a statute, the general words should be interpreted to include only things of the same type as the specific ones. It limits the scope of general terms to align with the category established by the specific terms. See the case of R v Federal Republic of Nigeria Ex Parte Igbinedion (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 162 where the court applied the ejusdem generis rule in interpreting a statute to ensure that the general terms were confined to the specific class of matters mentioned earlier in the provision.
2. Noscitur a sociis: This rule means that a word is known by the company it keeps. When the meaning of a word is unclear, it should be interpreted in the context of the surrounding words. It assumes that the legislature intends similar words to have a related meaning. See the case of Chief J.K. Randle v Kwara State (1986) 6 SC 210 where the court used the noscitur a sociis rule to determine the meaning of a particular word within a provision by considering the context of the surrounding language.
3. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius: This rule states that the express mention of one thing excludes others. Where a statute expressly mentions certain things, the court assumes that the legislature intended to exclude items not listed. See the case of Military Governor of Ondo State v Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 280 where the supreme court applied this rule, holding that where a statute specifies particular things, any other similar things not mentioned are excluded by implication.

PRESUMPTIONS IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

In addition to the above rules, certain presumptions guide courts in interpreting statutes and they include the following:

1. Presumption against retrospectivity: There is a general presumption that statutes do not apply retroactively unless expressly stated. This means that laws only apply to future events unless the legislature has indicated otherwise. See the case of Uwaifo v A-G Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124 where the court held that statutes should not be interpreted as having retroactive effects unless this intention is clearly expressed by the legislature.
2. Presumption against implied repeal: Courts presume that a statute does not intend to repeal earlier laws unless there is a direct inconsistency. This is because implied repeals are not favored in law, as they can create uncertainty. See the case of Adesanya v The President (1981) 2 NCLR 358 where the supreme court of Nigeria held that unless there is a direct conflict, the courts will not presume that a later statute repeals an earlier one.

USE OF EXTRINSIC MATERIALS

Courts may also refer to extrinsic materials to aid in the interpretation of statutes. These materials include legislative history, explanatory memoranda, or committee reports. See section 4 of the interpretation act which permits courts to consult external aids, such as preambles or reports, when interpreting unclear provisions of a statute.

CONCLUSION

The interpretation of statute is crucial in the legal process, as it ensures that the intention of the legislature is respected and applied correctly in judicial decisions. The rules of interpretation are designed to balance the literal meaning of words with the broader purpose of the law, while taking into account the potential for ambiguity or absurdity. Courts in Nigeria have developed a sophisticated approach to interpreting statutes, as reflected in the numerous cases where these rules have been applied to achieve justice.