9. The respondent may before filing a defence to the petition raise any preliminary objection to the petition and the Constitutional Court shall hear the parties before making an order on the objection. " [27] From the timeline of the alleged contravention and Petitioner's own submissions, it is clear to this Court that the Petition was not filed within the prescribed three months period from the alleged contravention. The decision being challenged is that of the 3rd Respondent when the letter that was sent on the 28th March 2022, imposed a censure on the Petitioner. Any challenge to this decision should have been brought on or before the 28th June 2022. The current petition was brought before the court on the 29th November 2022. [28] The argument by the Petitioner that it had obtained leave from the court is incorrect. The Petitioner withdrew the previous application due to failing to attach an affidavit to the notice of motion. The Court indicated that the Petitioner should refile the application and attach the required affidavit to the notice of motion. The current application is the subsequent application that was previously withdrawn for want of an affidavit. This by no means is synonymous with an application for leave of the Court to file the Petition out of time. [29] A clear distinction must be made concerning a policy and a law regarding the rule that governs the current petition before the court. The Petitioner is alleging that the Policy and editorial guidelines of the 2nd Respondent violated their rights under Article 22 of the Constitution. It is important to note that a policy and/or guideline is considered a 'soft law' and has no legal force on its own and is itself rarely the subject of litigation (unless it is ultra vires, meaning without legal foundation). [30] In the United Kingdom case, R (on the application of A) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [20217 UKSC 37, the court held the following: "Policies are different from law. They do not create legal rights as such. In the case of policies in relation to the exercise of statutory discretionary powers, it is unlawfulfor a public authority to fetter the discretion conferred on it by statute by applying a policy 7