LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Ouster of Court’s Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Clear and Unambiguous Statutory Provisions
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A court is concerned with the law as it is, not as it ought to be. It cannot ascribe meanings to clear, plain, and unambiguous provisions to make them conform with the court's own views of sound social policy.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Agwuna v. A.G., Federation & Anor (1995) NLC-1581994(SC) at pp. 20-21; Paras D--A.
"A court of law is concerned with law, as it is, and not with law, as it ought to be. Accordingly, it is not the business of a court of law, indeed, a court of law is not permitted to ascribe meanings to the clear, plain and unambiguous provisions of a statute in order to make such provisions conform with the court's own views of their meaning or of what they ought to mean in accordance with the tenets of sound social policy."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts must interpret statutes as written. If the language is clear, the court must give effect to it. The court cannot rewrite statutes to conform to policy preferences. The principle applies to all statutory interpretation. The court’s role is to apply the law, not to make it. The rule prevents judicial activism that disregards legislative intent. The court may declare a statute unconstitutional, but cannot change its meaning. The principle promotes legal certainty. The court will not strain to avoid an unpalatable result if the language is clear.
