User:The C of E/svm

Smith v Mutasa NO & Ano 1989 (3) ZLR 183 (SC) is a Supreme Court of Zimbabwe case. It was brought by the Conservative Alliance of Zimbabwe MP and former Prime Minister of Rhodesia Ian Smith against the Speaker of the House of Assembly for stopping his salary during suspension. The court ruled in favour of Smith and affirmed the supremacy of the Zimbabwean judiciary to decide on constitutional points of law.

Background
Ian Smith had been elected as an MP to the House of Assembly in Southern Rhodesia.

In 1987, due to making comments about South Africans standing together against sanctions, which were viewed as supporting aparthied, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe proposed a motion in Parliament to suspend Smith from the legislature. The Speaker Didymus Mutasa relied on a ruling from 1716 in the Parliament of Great Britain as justification for allowing the motion to be voted on. The motion was passed on a 38-10 vote. Smith was ordered to leave, with ZANU-PF members shouting death threats at him as he did so. The Speaker also suspended Smith's salary and parliamentary allowances for five months. Smith announced he would sue Parliament for the suspended pay. He was also going to sue against the suspension but opted not to following the Constitution of Zimbabwe being amended to abolish the white roll seats.

Court case
Smith first appealed to the High Court of Zimbabwe which upheld Mutasa's ruling.

The court ruled that the Constitution and judiciary held supremacy over Parliament. Chief Justice Enoch Dumbutshena ruled: "“The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is true that Parliament is supreme in the legislative field assigned to it by the Constitution, but even then Parliament cannot step outside the bounds of authority prescribed to it by the constitution. The difference between the power of the House of Commons and our House of Assembly is that the Constitution of the United Kingdom does not permit the Judicature to strike out laws enacted by Parliament. Parliament in the field of legislation is sovereign and supreme. That is not the position in Zimbabwe, where the supremacy of the Constitution is protected by the authority of an independent Judiciary, which acts as the interpreter of the constitution and all legislation. In Zimbabwe the judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and the rights of the citizens.”"

Aftermath
Following the ruling, Mutasa announced he would refuse to abide by the court's judgement and rejected that they had authority over Parliament saying "I will not pay him a cent". The five Supreme Court justices released a statement attacking Mutasa for: "the contempt in which the Speaker holds for the Supreme Court and rule of law". The Catholic Church and Zimbabwe Law Society also condemned Mutasa. Smith appealed again. Despite Mutasa's insistence in not complying with the court order, Zimababwean MPs voted to override him and force him to pay Smith the money he was owed.