JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 108 ____________________________________________________________________ country. In British practice a negatived Bill should not be reintroduced in the same session of Parliament, and therefore it could not be reintroduced in our Parliament. The Minister of Justice had argued that the Supreme Court was precluded from enquiring into the internal proceedings of Parliament, but the majority of the court rejected this argument: Zimbabwe was not a parliamentary democracy like Britain, but a constitutional democracy, and our Parliament was bound by the law as much as any other person or institution. Standing orders constituted legislation which must be obeyed. In his dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Malaba found that the record of the parliamentary proceedings in fact showed that the Bill was in fact read for a third time on 8 January and therefore had been validly passed by Parliament. In fact the record of the proceedings on 8 January does not show that the Bill was read the third time before the Minister moved his third reading motion and was defeated in the division. The record shows that the Minister, wanting to complete work on the Bill that day, sought the leave of the House for the third reading to be taken immediately, instead of on a subsequent sitting day as is the general rule laid down in standing orders. The (non-verbatim) record summarises an exchange something like this, in accordance with a time-honoured formula: the Bill (after adoption of amendments) being now ripe for Third Reading, the Speaker looks at the Minister and asks “What day for Third Reading?” to which the Minister replies “With leave, forthwith” (if he isn’t in a hurry, he says “Tomorrow” or “Next Tuesday” or something of the sort); the Speaker then asks the House if there are any objections, probably saying only “Any objections?” and, in the absence of objection, the Minister proceeds to move the third reading. It may be that it was unnecessary for the Minister to seek the leave of the House in this case, given that the relevant standing order was one of those suspended by an earlier vote; but that did not convert the exchange into the third reading.