JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 107 ____________________________________________________________________ Attempt to fast- track changes to electoral laws On 8 January 2002, a General Laws Amendment Bill, which would have made farreaching changes to electoral laws, went through the normal parliamentary processes and was defeated on its third reading. The next day, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, who was responsible for steering the Bill through Parliament, gave notice that he would move that the House rescind its decision and that standing order 127 should be suspended. Under this standing order, the same bill may not be offered twice in the same session. On 10 January, the two motions were passed. A new third reading took place, and the Bill was approved by a majority of the members. The Bill was promulgated on 4 February. A Member of Parliament challenged the validity of this legislation in the Supreme Court.164 The majority of the court165 decided that the legislation was invalid, because it had not been properly passed by Parliament. Standing orders prohibited the course that had been followed, and standing orders cannot be suspended at the convenience of a party. Ebrahim JA quoted Erskine May Parliamentary Practice: “The power of rescission has only been exercised in the case of a resolution resulting from a substantive motion, and even then sparingly. … Proposing a negatived question a second time for the decision of the House, would be … contrary to the established practice of Parliament. The reason why motions for open rescission are so rare … is that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected, and that it is unfair to resort to methods, whether direct or indirect, to reverse such a decision.” The learned judge said: “The reasoning of the learned editors is clear. Once Parliament has taken a vote, that vote cannot be rescinded simply by changing allegiances or changing numbers in the House in order to reverse the decision.” Erskine May, said the judge, was the “bible” on practice in the British Parliament and, by virtue of s 3 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act166 which applied British parliamentary practice to Zimbabwe, was equally authoritative in this