| dc.description.abstract | The research aims to assess the impact of applying the rules of interpretation on the doctrine of separation of powers. The question is whether the judiciary performs its function of statutory interpretation as prescribed by the law or exceeds its legal limits relying on the context. Therefore, this study attempts to explore the link between the political and constitutional concept of separation of powers and the judicial approach of applying the rules of statutory interpretation. Furthermore, implications of concepts such as constitutionalism and parliamentary sovereignty would be concerned in establishing such position. Moreover, this would employ qualitative analysis of primary data and secondary data. Primary data would include statutes, case laws, and secondary data would include text books and journal articles. As widely accepted, doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with three main powers of governance as exercised by separate and independent bodies. Although one institution could have a check over the other, overwhelming influence is unpermitted since it leads to a violation of the said doctrine. The legislature is assigned the task of passing statutes while the judiciary is entrusted with interpreting them in order to arrive at a determination. Hence, the judges engage in statutory interpretation under the purview of four rules; the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive rule. The impact of the said rules on separation of powers differs according to their application. Thereby, the judges in different jurisdictions have been criticized for violating the said doctrine in applying the rules of interpretation in line with their own subjective levels of technicality and flexibility. Therefore, the judges are expected to be rational in deciding cases. It could be submitted that the functional value of statutory interpretation is protected as long as separation of powers is upheld and specific circumstances are taken into consideration to achieve justice | en_US |
