The power to make rules of practice and procedure conferred on the Rules of Court Committee must be distinguished from the power to enact substantive legislation. In the case of MORNAH v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (2013) SCGLR (Special Edition) 502, this Court, speaking through BENIN JSC, concerning the confines and limitations of the authority of the Rules of Court Committee, said as follows: “The operative words herein are ‘practice and procedure’. This means no more than the rules that prescribe what steps to follow in order to have a right or duty judicially enforced. This is in contradistinction to the law that defines the specific rights or duties themselves… Thus when the Rules of Court Committee was charged with the responsibility of enacting rules to regulate the conduct of the practice and procedure in a Presidential election petition it meant the substantive laws were different from what the Committee was empowered to do. The Committee was not empowered to amend the substantive law/s without express authorization.”
THE REPUBLIC V. HIGH COURT, COMMERCIAL DIV., EX PARTE YVONNE AMPONSAH BROBBEY [2024] SLR (SC) 8 · Supreme Court · 2024 · KULENDI JSC
Read it in the judgment