NAME: AMAKIRI KARINATE PRINCESS

MATRIC NO: UG/21/1206

COURSE TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW
COURSE CODE
LECTURER: PROF A.D BADAIKI

ASSIGNMENT : CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE RULES FOR INTERPRETING PENAL LEGISLATIONS IN

NIGERIA.

Introduction
Penal legislations Penal legislation refers to laws that define and regulate
criminal offenses and punishments. These laws outline the rules and penalties for
various crimes, such as:

1. Crimes against persons (e.g., murder, assault, battery)

2. Crimes against property (e.g., theft, burglary, vandalism)
3. Crimes against the state (e.g., treason, sedition, espionage)
4. White-collar crimes (e.g., fraud, embezzlement, corruption)
5. Drug-related crimes
6. Sex offenses
7. Traffic offenses

Penal legislation includes:

1. Criminal codes
2. Penal codes
3. Statutes
4. Ordinances
5. Regulations

These laws aim to:

1. Maintain social order
2. Protect citizens
3. Punish offenders
4. Deter future crimes
5. Rehabilitate offenders

Examples of penal legislation include:

1. Criminal Code Act (Nigeria)
2. Penal Code (India)
3. United States Code (Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure)
4. UK's Criminal Justice Act
5. Canada's Criminal Code

Penal legislation is a critical component of the criminal justice system, providing

a framework for law enforcement, courts, and corrections to operate.

However ,Interpretation of something means ascertaining the meaning or significance

of that thing . Construction and interpretation of a statutory is an age-old
process and as language. Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining
the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The meaning of law in a statute
should be clear and explicit ,but this is not always achieved.
This, many of the cases which come before the courts concern a dispute over the
meaning of a word or phrase in a statute. In those cases the task of the court is
to decide the exact meaning of that particular word or phrase.
Interpretation of statuses is the exclusive duty of court. Whatever may be the
intention of the legislature in making a particular statute; it is the meaning
attached to the words of the statute by the courts that is the law. In attempting
to interpret every piece of legislation , the courts try as much as possible to
decipher the intention of the legislation while making the statute . It is the
attempts to get to the to the intention of the legislature that necessitates resort
by the courts to one rule of interpretation or the other .
In the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL VS PRINCE ERNEST AUGUSTUS OF HANOVER , Viscount
symonds said: “No one should profess to understand any part of a statute or any
other document before he has read the whole of it . Until he has done so, he is not
entitled to say that it or any part of it is clear and unambiguous “
However the necessity of interpretation of statutes includes
a. To find out the meaning of ambiguous words or provisions in a statute
b. To find out the intention of an ambiguous statute
c.To resolve ambiguity as to the scope , coverage or the application of a statute ;
d. The need to avoid hardship or miscarriage of justice in the application of law.

CANNONS OF INTERPRETATION
There are three major principles of statutory interpretation.These have been
produced over the centuries by judges themselves. The main canons , principles or
rules of interpretation evolved long ago by judges to find out the meaning of a
statute or intention of a law maker as written down in a statute are:
1. Literal rule
2. Golden rule
3. Mischief Rule

MISCHIEF RULE
The mischief rule is a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine
the legislator’s intention. Originating from the 16th century case ( Heydon’s case)
in the United Kingdom .The mischief rule is otherwise known as the social policy
rule . It is also commonly referred to as the the rule in Heydon’s case because it
was formulated by LORD EDWARD LOCKE .He laid down four things to be discussed and
considered :
1. What was the common law before the making of the Act
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not
provide;
3. What remedy parliament bath resolved abs apppinted to fire the disease
of the commonwealth;
4. The true reason for the remedy.

The mischief rule is mainly concerned with the analysis of the legislation to
discover the evil which the legislation seeks to cure. The mischief rule often goes
beyond the words of the statute and tries to ascertain what the position of the law
was before the legislation sought to be interpreted was made.
According to Imhanobe , mischief rule of interpretation is purposive in nature as
it seeks to ascertain the reason behind the legislation . When a court applied the
mischief rule if interpretation, the court must have ascertained the mischief the
legislation seeks to cure and interpret the legislation in order to suppress such
mischief
In the case of BALOGUN VS SALAMI , it was held that Section 10 was intended to
provide a remedy for the well known bane attendant on dealings with family land.
Also in the case of AKERELE V IGP where the defendant was charged with unlawfully
accusing someone of being a witch contrary to Section 210(1) of the criminal code
law . The court therefore rightly rejected the argument that the word “accuse
“meant making a formal accusation by swearing to an information under oath.
However the mischief Rule enables court to extend the law to catch law breakers and
otherwise do justice by adopting a meaning that will remedy or cure mischief ,
crime or wrong in society;
Secondly it enables judges to express their own opinion as to social policy

LITERAL RULE
The literal rule of interpretation states that where the words used in the statute
are clear and unambiguous , their plan and natural meaning should be given effect .
The words In an enactment have their own natural effect and the construction of an
act depends on its wording. There should be no additions or subtraction of words in
the construction of statutes and in its interpretation . The primary rule is to
interpret words as they are .

This view was supported by Tridal, C.J. in the Sussex Peerage Case. It is believed
that the mere inconvenience of words when applied in their ordinary sense is not
enough to depart from the ordinary meanings of the words. This view was shown in
the cases of Adegbenro v. Akintola and Okumagba v. Egbe. The harshness of the rule
was shown in the case of R. v. Bangaza where the defendants faced capital
punishment for an offence committed while they were infants because they were not
infants anymore when they were convicted.
The problem with this rule is that words often have more than one meaning which can
lead to ambiguity. This is what leads to the next rule.

GOLDEN RULE

Where the application of the original meaning of the words used in the statute
would create absurdity, inconsistency or ambiguity, the courts may choose to apply
the secondary meaning of the words used. The assumption is that lawmakers do not
intend anything that is absurd. The golden rule means that where the literal
meaning of the words will lead to absurd result , a court should adopt an
interpretation that avoids the absurdity. To some extent, the goldeneye rule is
really an extension of the literal rule . This so so, for the golden rule
requires , that the words of a statute be interpreted according to their ordinary ,
plain and natural grammatical meaning, except where it will lead to manifest
absurdity .
The rule was formulated in Becke v. Smith where Parke, B., stated that it is
important the give words their ordinary meaning when interpreting statutes, but the
words may be modified if the ordinary meaning leads to absurdity. The words should
only be modified as much as is required to remove the absurdity, and no further.
The kind of absurdity that is referred to is when it would be illogical, either
because the statute contradicts itself or it contradicts a principle in law. A
statute cannot be said to create absurdity in its literal translation simply
because it is inconvenient for one of the parties.
In Re Singsworth, a son who had murdered his mother was exempted from inheriting
the deceased’s estate to prevent him from benefiting from his crime. In R. v. Eze,
the court construed “or” as “and” to make sense of the definition of an indictable
offence. This interpretation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Ejor v. Inspector-
General of Police and given legislative endorsement through a subsequent amendment
of the section.

The golden rule was also 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).
Conclusively,penal legislations