In Re Nalumino Mundia (Petition No. 326 of 1971) [1971] ZMHC 21 (14 April 1971)

IN RE NALUMINO MUNDIA (1971) ZR 70 (HC) HIGH COURT HUGHES J 14TH APRIL 1971 (Petition No. 326 of 1971) Flynote I Courts 25- High Court - Jurisdiction - Whether extends to internal proceedings of National Assembly. Headnote The petitioner applied to the High Court for an order of certiorari directed to the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Zambia requiring him to remove 30 into court, for the purpose of having it quashed, an order suspending the applicant from the National Assembly in violation of its own standing orders. Held: The High Court does not have power to interfere with the exercise of 35 the jurisdiction of the National Assembly in the conduct of its own internal proceedings. Cases cited: ■ ■ (1) Stockdale v Hansard 3 State Tr. (N. S.) 748. (2) The People v The Speaker of The National Assembly ex parte Harry 40 Nkumbula (1970) ZR ■ 97. M W Mwisiya, Mwisiya Chongwe & Co., for the applicant. Judgment Hughes J: This is an application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari directed to the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Zambia requiring 45 him to remove into the court, for the purpose of having it quashed, an order suspending the applicant, Nalumino Mundia, from the National Assembly for a period of three months. ■ 1971 ZR p71 HUGHES J This application raises the important constitutional issue of the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction in relation to the affairs of Parliament. This is a problem which has led to considerable conflict in England in reconciling the law of privilege of the Houses of Parliament with the general law. Erskin May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th Ed. at p. 152, 5 deals with the subject thus: I ■ "The solution gradually marked out by the courts is to insist on their right in principle to decide all questions of privilege arising in litigation before them, with certain large exceptions in favour of parliamentary jurisdiction. Two of these, which are supported by a great weight of authority, are the exclusive jurisdiction of each House over its own internal proceedings, and the right of either House to commit and punish for contempt." This statement is supported by the judgment of the Court of Queens Bench in Stockdale v Hansard (1) where all four judges (Dencan, C. J., 15 Littledale, Patterson and Colleridge, J. J.) admitted that over its own internal proceedings the jurisdiction of the House of Commons was exclusive. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the judgment of this Court (Magnus and Hughes, J. J.) in Nkumbula's case (2), in which an 20 order of mandamus was directed to the Speaker, as authority for the proposition that the High Court is not excluded from exercising jurisdiction over the National Assembly on the grounds of parliamentary privilege. That, of course, was not the effect of the decision in that case. There the court held that Mr Speaker was not protected by parliamentary 25 privilege from performing statutory function, outside the proceedings of the Assembly, imposed on him by the Constitution of Zambia. In the present case it would appear that the Standing Orders Committee purported to act under Standing Order 137 (and not under Standing Order 67 as stated in the applicant's statement) and it may well be 30 that in doing so it did not fully comply with ■ its own standing orders - particularly Standing Order 137 (3). If that be the case the applicant ought to have sought redress in the manner prescribed by that standing order. ■ ■ In my view this court does not have power to interfere with the 35 exclusive jurisdiction of the National Assembly in the conduct of its own internal proceedings. Application dismissed ■