Categorising the Rules of Interpretation

Introduction:

In a previous note, it was highlighted that interpretation is not arbitrary; it is underpinned by rules. Those rules can be categorised as basic rules, aids to interpretation, presumptions, and special and binding rules.

These are now briefly discussed.

1. Basic Rules of Interpretation:

These rules set out the essential steps to follow to ascertain the intention of the author(s) of an instrument. Among others, these basic rules include the following:

1. Words must be given their ordinary meaning within the context in which they are used.
2. However, technical terms should be given their technical meanings.
3. The interpretation must be nearly as close to the mind and intention of the maker as is possible.
4. The intention of the author(s) of an instrument must be ascertained from the document as a whole.

2. Aids to Interpretation:

The aids to interpretation are tools, principles, concepts, or maxims that assist the court in interpreting an instrument. Among others, the aids to interpretation include:

1. Internal aids to interpretation: This includes definition sections, long titles, provisos, headings and marginal notes, and punctuation, among others.
2. External aids to interpretation: This includes reports, books, relevant treaties, legislative antecedents, and explanatory memoranda, among others.
3. Linguistic canons: This includes expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ejusdem generis, and noscitur a sociis.

3. Presumptions:

These are judicial assumptions regarding the prima facie intentions of the author(s) of an instrument. Edzie, in “Modern Purposive Approach to Interpretation in Ghana,” defined presumptions as special aids to interpretation that afford a prima facie indication of the principles or values underlying the drafting of a particular provision.

Among others, presumptions include:

1. Presumption of perfect expression.
2. Presumption against tautology.
3. Presumption against absurdity.
4. Presumption against the retroactive operation of statutes.
5. Presumed competence and knowledge of the legislator.

4. Special and Binding Rules:

These are rules of interpretation that emanate from statutory or constitutional provisions. For instance, under the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792), it is provided that where a court is concerned with ascertaining the meaning of an enactment, the court may consider a report of a commission, a relevant treaty, among others. It may also allow the court to take cognizance of the legislative antecedents of an enactment, a textbook, and parliamentary debates when considering the language of an enactment that is ambiguous or obscure.