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.