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