LSP048: The Ejusdem Generis Rule

Statutorily, Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), empowers the Courts with the authority to interpret the Constitution and every other law to achieve justice.

In doing thing, there are tools, known as Canons of Interpretation, which guide the Courts in their quest for interpretative justice. One of the canons relevant to this discourse is the Ejusdem Generis rule.

Ejusdem Generis is a Latin phrase for ‘of the same kind‘. As a canon of interpretation, it means that where particular words are followed by general words, the general words are limited to the same thing as the particular words unless there be something to show a wider sense was intended.

In the case of Buhari vs Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (pt. 841) at 486 – 487, the court, per Uwaifo, JSC (as he then was) stated the position of the rule as follows: “Ejusdem generic rule is an interpretative rule which the court would apply in an appropriate case to confine the scope of general words which follows special words used in a statutory provision or document within the genus of those special words.

Furthermore, Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines the rule thus: Under ejusdem generic canon of statutory construction where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated.”

Putting it in a context, if a law refers to students of the Department of Botany, Zoology, Chemistry, Physics, and other students, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such other students would not include students from the Faculty of Law because the list included departments in Faculty of Science.

The Ejusdem rule came up for judicial pronouncement in Okewu v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) 9 NWLR (pt 1305). In that case, the appellant was caught on 13th March 1997 in Ibadan with 58 bags of Indian hemp, otherwise known as cannabis sativa, weighing 408 kilogrammes which is an offence contrary to section 10(h) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Decree No 48 of 1989.

That aforementioned provision provides that: “Any person who, without lawful authority, knowingly possesses the drugs popularly known as cocaine, LSD, heroin or any other similar drug shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and liable on conviction to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not less than fifteen years and not exceeding twenty-five years.

The appellant contended that, since Indian hemp is grown or cultivated as a plant while cocaine, LSD, and heroin are drugs that are manufactured through chemical processes in laboratories, they do not fall in the same class and as such, he submitted that Indian hemp cannot be classified as any other similar drugs within the provisions of section 10(h) of the NDLEA Decree.

The Court rejected this argument and held that Cannabis sativa, otherwise known as Indian hemp, falls within the phrase “any other similar drug” used in section 10(h) of the National Drug law enforcement Agency Decree.

The Court further held that: Narcotic is an addictive drug, especially an opiate that dulls the senses and induces sleep. It is also a drug that is controlled and prohibited by law. Cocaine, LSD, heroin, and Indian hemp, otherwise known as cannabis sativa, are substances that are known to alter users perception or consciousness. These are all narcotic drugs and are prohibited by law. The trial tribunal was therefore right when it held in the instant case that Indian hemp falls within the ambit of the phrase “any other similar drug used in section 10(h) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Decree No. 48 of 1989 (as amended) under which the appellant was charged, convicted and sentenced by the trial tribunal.

This principle held in Okewu’s case has also been judicially reinforced in a similar case of Chukwuma v. F.R.N. (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1264) 391.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.❤