Previous 2 / 10 Next

The Petitioner alleges that the 1st Respondent violated Article 22 of the Constitution of [2] Seychelles (the Constitution) by not providing the necessary legal requirements to protect the right to freedom of opinion and the rights to freedom of expression of the Petitioner under the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation Act (SBC Act). Further, the Petitioner alleges that the 3rd Respondent violated the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of opinion by the removal of the recording of the press conference from their digital platforms and blurring of the banner entitled 'Tir li 2025.' [3] The Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a) A declaration that the policy and editorial guidelines issued by the 3rd Respondent contravenes Article 22 of the Constitution. b) A declaration that the Petitioner's rights above mentioned has been contravened. c) A declaration that the acts and omissions of Respondents above-mentioned contravened the Petitioner's rights. d) Make such declaration, issue such writs and give such directions as the court may consider appropriatefor the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of the Constitution and disposing of all the issues relating to the application. e) Make such additional order under this Constitution or as may beprescribed by law to give effect and to enforce the Petitioner's fundamental rights. f) [4] To order cost of this application. The pt Respondents filed preliminary objections, dated 071h March 2023; and the 3rd Respondent filed a response to the Application, dated 03rd March 2023. [5] The l " Respondents' principal objection is that Petition is time-barred under the Constitutional Court (Application, Contravention, Enforcement, or Interpretation of the Constitution) Rules (the Rules) and as the Petitioner has failed to seek leave to proceed out of time prior to filing the Petition, the Petition should be dismissed. The 1st Respondents further contend in their preliminary objections that the Petition should be dismissed on the basis that the Petition is misconceived and unarguable against the 1st Respondent. The 151 Respondent avers that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate how the 1st Respondent failed to safeguard the rights of the Petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution. 2

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

United Seychelles v Republic and others [2023]

Case Law

Country

Seychelles

Country Location

Latitude: -4.679574

Longitude: 55.491977

Country Location (linked Case Law): Seychelles

Decision Date: Dec 5, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Denied/Vacated

Keywords

Content Regulation / Censorship
Freedom of Expression

Court Name: Constitutional Court of Seychelles

Case Number: CP102022

Case Summary: Facts: United Seychelles (US), represented by Patrick Herminie, filed a Constitutional Petition against the Republic of Seychelles, the Attorney General, and the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation (SBC). The petition, filed on 29th November 2022, alleged violations of Article 22 of the Constitution by the respondents, specifically accusing them of infringing on the petitioner's rights to freedom of opinion and expression. This was purportedly done through the removal of a press conference recording from digital platforms and the blurring of a banner entitled 'Tir li 2025' by the SBC. The petition sought various reliefs including declarations that the respondents' actions contravened the Constitution and orders to enforce the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Issue: The primary issue is whether the Constitutional Petition is time-barred, making it invalid, as the respondents claimed it was filed out of the required timeframe without obtaining leave from the court to proceed out of time.

Rule: According to the Constitutional Court (Application, Contravention, Enforcement, or Interpretation of the Constitution) Rules, a petition alleging a contravention of the Constitution must be filed within three months of the occurrence of the event leading to such an application. If a petition is filed out of this timeframe, the petitioner must seek and obtain leave from the court to file the petition late.

Analysis: The respondents argued that the petition was time-barred as it was filed several months after the alleged constitutional violations occurred (based on the censorship action dated 28th March 2022). Furthermore, the respondents contended that United Seychelles did not seek permission from the court to file the petition out of time, as required by the rules. The court agreed with the respondents, noting that the petition was indeed filed out of the prescribed timeframe without the necessary court permission. It also dismissed the petitioner's claim of ongoing violations, stating that the petition did not establish a continuous contravention that would justify extending the timeframe. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents about the petition being time-barred was sustained.

Conclusion: The court dismissed the Constitutional Petition as time-barred since it was filed outside the prescribed three-month period following the alleged constitutional contravention, and no leave to file out of time was sought or granted. The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules concerning the timeliness of petitions challenging constitutional violations. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Case Significance

The significance of the case United Seychelles v. Republic of Seychelles & Others lies primarily in its reinforcement of procedural adherence in constitutional litigation, specifically regarding the timeliness of filing petitions. Here are some key aspects of the case's significance:

Strict Adherence to Timelines: The case underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines when filing constitutional petitions. It serves as a precedent that petitions filed outside the mandated time frame without the necessary judicial leave will be dismissed, emphasizing the judiciary's commitment to enforcing rules that promote judicial efficiency and discipline.
Legal Procedure for Late Filings: The ruling clarifies the procedure for parties wishing to file constitutional petitions after the standard deadline has passed. It highlights the necessity of obtaining leave from the court to proceed with a late filing, providing a clear procedural guideline for future litigants who might face similar circumstances.
Interpretation of Continuous Violation: The decision addresses the interpretation of what constitutes a "continuous violation" of rights, a concept that can extend the timeframe for filing petitions. In this case, the court found that the alleged violations were not continuous, thereby not warranting an extension of the filing deadline. This interpretation helps in setting boundaries for what qualifies as ongoing harm and impacts how rights are safeguarded under the law.
Separation of Powers and Administrative Function: By dismissing the petition based on an administrative rule violation, the court reinforces the separation of powers, showing that all branches of government must respect legal processes. It delineates the boundaries within which legal and constitutional disputes are to be handled, respecting the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying the law.

Source URL: SEYLII

Related Law

Seychelles's Constitution of 1993 with amendments through 2011

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: May 6, 2024

Primary Documents

05122023_CP10_2022_UNITED_SEYCHELLES_VS_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_SEYCHELLES_AND_OTHERS.pdf
english
Download View