[19] The Petitioner stated that the policy of the 3rd Respondent, which is not law and is still in place and the 3rd Respondent does not allow the Petitioner to hold a live press conference based on the same policy. [20] The Petitioner avers that the 1st and 3rd Respondents have engaged themselves in a series of unlawful actions which are connected and continue to violate the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of opinion of the Petitioner. [21] It is further submitted, that an application to file out of time as per Rule 4 (1)(a) of the Rules does not apply to the Petition as there is a continuing violation against the Petitioner. [22] The Petitioner cited the case of Assemblies o[God and Elke Talma v Michel & ors CC 2 o[ 2010 that held as follows: "for a long as it inhibits that person from the enjoyment to his right, that contravention is continuing" [23] The Petitioner avers that the 1st Respondent's preliminary objections seeking an order for dismissal of the Petition even before it is heard on merits are what the Court of Appeal held in Chow v Gappy & Drs (3 0(2007) [20071 SCCC 1 (2 April 2007) as the "tail wagging the dog". The Petitioner avers that the 1st Respondent is not taking into account that the Petitioner is seeking a remedy for the alleged contraventions of the Petitioner's Constitutional rights and the Petitioner has a right to be heard. [24] Based on the abovementioned, the Petitioner avers that the preliminary objections are frivolous and vexatious and are aiming to deprive the Petitioner of its rights under Article 46 (1) of the Constitution. [25] The Petitioner prays for the dismissal of the preliminary objections raised by the 1st Respondent and for the court to proceed to hear the petition on its merits. 5