What has sometimes been described as the only rule of statutory construction is legislative intent. Though several other interpretive principles have been formulated supposedly only for the purpose of arriving at legislative intent, the best endeavours of the finest jurists, legislators and the courts have yet to produce a common ground on deciphering it. This lack of clear-cut parameters has bedeviled decisions of the country’s apex court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This necessitates a historical and comparative inquiry that concludes that the lexical evidence points to that intentionalism and purposivism are one and the same and that what is needed is merely a refinement of the jurisprudence of intentionalism.There is a convergence in that the evidence from British constitutional history suggests that constitutional systems and hierarchies impact on the interpretive regimes adopted at particular periods. Given that evidence, the suitability of parliamentary intention as currently applied may be entirely dependent on the model of supremacy doctrine (parliamentary or constitutional) and of separation of powers (strict or liberal) that a specified jurisdiction practises.