The appellant, Mutasa, was a former Speaker of the then House of Assembly. He had addressed a seminar of senior public servants where he had voiced the opinion that the calibre of MPs was so low as to make Parliament meaningless and that they were uninformed, lacked intelligence and demeaned the institution of Parliament. The respondent, the Speaker of Parliament, ruled that the appellant's words constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege and a select committee of members of Parliament was appointed to investigate the matter. The committee took evidence from witnesses in the absence of Mutasa. He was questioned but was not allowed legal representation and the select committee also refused his request to recall, for further examination, witnesses who had testified. As a result of the committee's recommendations, Mutasa was found guilty of contempt of Parliament and severely reprimanded by the Speaker. Mutasa sought a judicial review of the proceedings of the select committee arguing that the finding of contempt should be quashed on the grounds that the committee's procedure had violated his right to a fair hearing (contrary to section 18(2) of the Constitution) and that his utterances outside Parliament were protected by his constitutional right to freedom of expression. The Speaker then issued a certificate under section 6(1) of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act which the presiding judge deemed to be conclusive of the matter and accordingly stayed the proceedings. Mutasa appealed to the Supreme Court.