Let me bring to the fore at this point the expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Rule which means the express mention of one thing in a statutory provision, as
herein - the Constitution.- the grundnorm, automatically excludes any other
stipulation which would otherwise have been applied by implication. See
Ogunyiya v. Okudo (1979) 6-9 SC 32, PDP v. INEC (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.626) 200;
Buhari v. Dikko Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.841) 446, Udoh v. Orthopaedic Hospital
Management Board (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.304) 139 and Halsbury's Law of England
4th Edition, paragraph 876." Per FABIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 24-25, paras. E-A)
SUN INSURANCE NIGERIA PLC v. UMEZ ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY LTD CITATION: (2015) LPELR-24737(SC)

"Similarly, it is a well established rule of interpretation of deeds and statutes that

the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. The principle is ably
expressed in the latin maxim: expressio unius personae est exclusio alterius or
expressum facit cessare tacitum. The term means that the expression of one
person or thing implies the exclusion of other persons or things of the same class
but which are not mentioned: See Odgers Construction of Deeds and Statutes,
5th Edition by G. Dworkin, 1967, pages 94 and 268; Mills v. United Counties Bank
Ltd. (1911) 1 Ch. 669: Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes. 12th Edition by
Langan, page 293; Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition page 581 and Steven H.
Gofis, Law Dictionary; 1975, page 76." Per Akintan, JSC (Dissenting). (P. 61,
Paras. A-E)
Agbareh v. Mimra (2008) NWLR (Pt.1071) 378 S.C.

"It is a well settled principle of construction of statutes that where a section

names specific things among many other possible alternatives, the intention is
that those not named are not intended to be included. Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius. This is that the express mention of one thing in a statutory
provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied
by implication, with regard to the same issue". PER KARIBI WHYTE, J.S.C. (P.11,
Paras.D-G)
Udoh v. O.H.M.B. (1993) NWLR (Pt.304)139