One of the biggest misconceptions many people have about courts is that judges simply “read the law and apply it.” In reality, the process is often far more complicated.

Laws are made up of words, and words can sometimes be vague, broad, unclear, or capable of more than one meaning. Because of this, judges are often required to interpret the law before applying it to a case.

This process of interpretation plays a major role in shaping justice in Ghana.

Why Interpretation Matters

Not every law answers every question directly.

Sometimes:

• a law may be poorly drafted,
• words may be ambiguous,
• circumstances may change over time,
• or the law may not clearly address a modern situation.

When this happens, judges must determine what the law truly means and how it should apply.

This is why two lawyers can read the same law and argue completely different interpretations in court.

Different Approaches to Interpretation

Over the years, different schools of legal thought have influenced how judges interpret laws.

Some judges focus strictly on the exact words used in legislation. Others focus more on fairness, public interest, or the broader purpose behind the law.

Literal Interpretation

Under the literal approach, judges give words their ordinary and natural meaning, even if the outcome appears harsh or unreasonable.

This approach is strongly associated with the Positivist school of thought, which believes judges should apply the law exactly as written rather than introduce their own personal opinions or morality.

Positivists argue that laws passed by Parliament represent the will of the people and must therefore be respected.

In Republic v Judge of City of London Court, the court stated:

“The rule is that courts will give words their ordinary or literal meaning even if the result is not very sensible.”

This reflects the idea that judges are not lawmakers.

The Positivist View

Legal positivists believe law and morality are separate things.

According to this view:

• judges should not rewrite laws,
• courts should not add words to statutes,
• and personal beliefs should not replace the intention of lawmakers.

This philosophy was strongly reflected in Republic v Fast Track High Court; Ex Parte Daniel.

In that case, the Supreme Court stressed that courts cannot amend the Constitution simply because they dislike the wording or believe a different outcome would be fairer.

The court warned that judges must not substitute their own wisdom for that of the framers of the Constitution.

The case involved the appointment of Justice D.K. Afreh, a retired Supreme Court judge, to sit as an additional High Court judge. The challenge focused on whether the Constitution permitted such an appointment after the age of 65.

The court held that the wording of the Constitution was clear and refused to read additional restrictions into it.

Strict Compliance With Procedure

The literal approach is also seen in cases involving procedural rules.

In Network Computer System Ltd v Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Ltd, an appeal was dismissed simply because it was filed one day late.

Similarly, in NIB v Standard Offshore Trust Co. Ltd, the Supreme Court dismissed an entire suit because the writ failed to include required foreign addresses under procedural rules.

The court treated the defect as fatal and incapable of correction.

These decisions show how courts sometimes insist on strict compliance with legal rules even where the result appears severe.

Purposive Interpretation

Not all judges prefer strict literalism.

Some judges focus more on the purpose or intention behind the law rather than merely the exact wording.

This is often called purposive interpretation.

Under this approach, courts attempt to determine:

• what problem the law intended to solve,
• why the law was created,
• and what outcome best promotes justice and fairness.

This approach is influenced partly by Natural Law thinking, which emphasises morality, justice, and reason.

The CHRAJ Case

A well-known example is Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex Parte CHRAJ (Richard Anane Interested Party).

The issue was whether the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) could investigate corruption allegations reported in the media without a formal complaint from an identifiable person.

Different parties proposed different interpretations of the constitutional word “complaint.”

The court eventually adopted the ordinary dictionary meaning and held that a valid complaint required an identifiable individual or corporate body.

The case demonstrated how interpretation itself can become the central issue in litigation.

The Natural Law Approach

Natural law theorists believe laws should be fair, moral, and just.

Thinkers such as St Thomas Aquinas argued that law should promote good and avoid evil.

Under this philosophy, some judges may favour interpretations that promote justice, fairness, and human dignity rather than rigid technicality.

This way of thinking often influences purposive interpretation.

Legal Realism

Another influential theory is Legal Realism.

Legal realists argue that judges are influenced not only by legal rules but also by:

• fairness,
• public policy,
• social conditions,
• personal experiences,
• and practical consequences.

According to this view, judges are human beings, and their decisions may sometimes reflect broader social concerns rather than pure legal logic alone.

This helps explain why different judges may occasionally interpret similar laws differently.

Sociological Interpretation

The Sociological school views law as a tool for maintaining social order and promoting the welfare of society.

Judges influenced by this approach may prefer interpretations that promote practical justice rather than rigid technicality.

In Anthony Amegashie v Millicom Ghana Ltd, the court refused to strike out a matter over a procedural error because doing so would only create unnecessary delay and expense.

The court quoted jurist Benjamin Cardozo, who argued that the welfare of society should guide the development and application of legal rules.

This reflects the idea that courts should pursue substantial justice rather than punish every minor mistake.

Why Interpretation Is So Important

The way judges interpret laws can affect:

• elections,
• criminal trials,
• contracts,
• constitutional disputes,
• employment rights,
• property ownership,
• and even fundamental human rights.

In many cases, the dispute is not about what happened but about what the law truly means.

That is why interpretation remains one of the most important functions of courts.

The Bigger Picture

Law is not always as straightforward as people assume.

Sometimes judges strictly follow the wording of statutes. Other times they focus on fairness, purpose, public interest, or social consequences.

Different philosophies of interpretation continue to shape court decisions in Ghana and around the world.

Understanding these approaches helps explain why courts sometimes reach decisions that surprise the public — and why legal arguments are often about much more than simply reading words on paper.