YOU SIGNED IT: BUT THE LAW DOES NOT SUPPORT IT: Why Consent Cannot Legalize Illegality in Contracts

INTRODUCTION
One of the most abused statements in legal and commercial conversations is this:
“But you signed the agreement.”
It is often used as though a signature is the final burial ground of justice, as though the mere act of signing transforms every clause into sacred law. In reality, the law has never taken that position. A signature may prove consent, but consent alone does not legalize illegality.

A contract is not superior to the Constitution. Neither is private agreement above statute. Parties may have freedom to contract, but that freedom ends where illegality begins.
The law has always maintained a simple but powerful principle:
No person can enforce an illegal agreement through the machinery of the law.
This is because courts are not established to protect illegality. They are established to uphold justice according to law.

• THE DANGEROUS MISUNDERSTANDING OF "FREEDOM OF CONTRACT"
Modern commerce thrives on agreements. Employment contracts, tenancy agreements, loan arrangements, digital terms and conditions, partnership deeds, all rely on consent. Because of this, many people mistakenly believe that once two adults agree and sign a document, the law must automatically enforce it. That is incorrect.
Freedom of contract does not mean freedom to violate the law. The principle was never intended to permit parties to overthrow statutes through private arrangements.
A contract may contain:
• An illegal clause,
• An unconstitutional provision,
• An oppressive waiver,
or a term contrary to public policy.
Where that happens, the courts reserve the power to strike down such provisions regardless of the signatures attached to them.

• THE SIGNATURE OF PARTIES CANNOT CONVERT UNLAWFULNESS INTO LEGALITY.
The Constitution Remains Supreme
In constitutional democracies like Nigeria, the Constitution is supreme. Every agreement derives its legitimacy from the legal system established by the Constitution. Once a contractual term contradicts constitutional provisions, the offending clause becomes vulnerable.
For instance, parties cannot validly agree to:
• Commit a crime,
• Waive rights unlawfully,
• Enforce discrimination prohibited by law,
• Evade statutory obligations,
or contract against public interest.
Even where both parties fully understood the terms before signing, the illegality remains.
The law does not ask merely whether parties agreed. It also asks:
“Was the agreement lawful?”

That second question is where many contracts fail. A Signature Is Evidence, Not Salvation
The phrase “you signed it” only establishes that:
1. The document exists, and
2. The party assented to it.
It does not automatically establish that the contents are lawful.
If signatures alone legalized agreements, then fraudsters, traffickers, corrupt officials, and criminal enterprises could simply hide under written contracts. The legal system would collapse into organized illegality clothed in paperwork. That is why courts consistently refuse to enforce illegal agreements.
The law recognizes an important distinction between:
• Consent, and
• Legality.
An agreement needs both.
Without legality, consent becomes legally useless.

• ILLEGALITY CLAUSES AND SEVERABILITY
Not every illegal clause destroys an entire contract. Sometimes, the unlawful portion may be removed while the rest survives. This is the doctrine of severability.
For example:
• An employment agreement may survive despite an unlawful restraint clause,
• A tenancy agreement may remain valid even if an illegal penalty provision is struck out,
or a commercial agreement may continue after removal of an unlawful exemption clause.
However, where the illegality goes to the root of the transaction, the entire agreement may collapse.
The determining question often becomes:
“Can the contract stand independently without the illegal provision?”
If the answer is no, the agreement may be void entirely.
Public Policy and the Moral Foundation of Law
Beyond statutes and constitutions, courts also consider public policy.
Certain agreements may not expressly violate written law yet remain unenforceable because they offend societal morality, justice, or public welfare.
The law refuses to aid contracts that:
• Promote corruption,
• Obstruct justice,
° Encourage immorality,
• Suppress lawful rights,
or undermine public institutions.
This is because the law is not merely mechanical. It also protects the ethical foundation of society.
A legal system that enforces every signed document blindly would eventually legitimize oppression.

• THE REALITY IN MODERN TRANSACTIONS
Today, many people unknowingly sign unlawful terms because of economic pressure, ignorance, or unequal bargaining power. Employees sign exploitative conditions to secure jobs. Tenants accept oppressive clauses to obtain accommodation. Consumers click “I Agree” on digital terms they never read.
Yet the existence of a signature does not prevent judicial scrutiny.
• Courts still retain the authority to examine whether:
• The clause violates statute,
• The agreement offends public policy,
• Constitutional rights were unlawfully waived,
or the bargain itself was fundamentally illegal.
The law recognizes that justice cannot always be reduced to ink on paper.
CONCLUSION
The statement “you signed it” is legally powerful, but not legally absolute. A contract cannot rise above the law that gives it life. No clause survives merely because parties consented to it. Once a provision conflicts with the Constitution, statute, or public policy, the law may refuse to recognize or enforce it. Consent matters.
But legality matters more.
Because in the end, the law does not merely ask whether parties agreed.
It asks whether what they agreed to deserves the protection of the courts.