The Purpose of Law is to Uphold Justice! Therefore, it must always be steadfast.
If so, how can courts deliver different verdicts on the very same issue?
Let us imagine a scenario. A person is lying injured on the side of a road, next to a “No Parking” sign.
An ambulance arrives and stops at that exact spot to pick up the injured person.
Let us assume that a dutiful traffic police officer files a case for parking in a “No Parking” zone.
Here, the law states that “vehicles should not be stopped.” An ambulance is also a vehicle. If the judge rules that this is indeed an offense, it means they have used the Literal Rule of statutory interpretation, adhering strictly to the letter of the law.
However, if applying the law word-for-word leads to an absurd (or ill-fitting) result, and the judge rules that, “Generally, vehicles should not stop here, but in exceptional circumstances, it is not an offense,” and thus declares it not a crime, it means that judge has used the Golden Rule.
The purpose of placing the “No Parking” sign there is to protect the general public. Therefore, if the judge rules that stopping an ambulance to save an injured person is not a crime, it means that judge has used the Purposive Approach.
The same law, interpreted differently, leads to different outcomes.
Courts use the most appropriate rule of interpretation to deliver true justice.
Now, to the matter at hand –
Section 28(4)(a) of the Local Government Election Act states:
“To confirm the date of birth, every young candidate must attach a certified copy of their birth certificate or an affidavit along with the nomination form.”
Some political parties had attached copies of birth certificates attested by a Notary Public.
As this was not accepted, different cases were filed in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The High Court’s Verdict:
“Only a copy provided by the Registrar or Assistant Registrar is a ‘certified copy’. A copy provided by a Notary Public is not a ‘certified copy’ (it is an ‘attested copy’). Therefore, the rejection of the nomination was correct.”
The Court of Appeal’s Verdict:
“The purpose of this law is to confirm the candidate’s age. Therefore, there should be no issue in accepting the attested copy provided by the Notary Public. Hence, the nomination forms should be accepted.”
The same law. A different perspective.
Which rule of interpretation do you believe is most appropriate in this matter?