[13] The Respondent cited the case of Darrel Green vs The Government o[Seychelles & Ors Civil Appeal 43 0[1997, the Court stated that: "The Constitutional Court may grant such leave not as of course but only if the applicant shows sufficient reasons tojustify an extension of time. " Objections/Submissions of the [14] 3J'd Respondent The 3rd Respondent adopts the submission filed on behalf of the l " and 2nd Respondents. The 3rd Respondent had issued a Policy and Procedure for Press Conferences covering inter alia, live Political Press Conferences, whereby the Political Party and their nominated speakers have the "legal and moral responsibility to speak the truth, to avoid hate speech, not to incite hatred and discord, and not to cause undue offence or harm to others." [15] In terms of the abovementioned Policy, where a Political Party breaches the editorial and ethical principles, the 3rd Respondent would not approve further live broadcasts but would permit delayed broadcasts with offending materials removed. [16] The 3rd Respondent avers that when the country enters the official political campaign period, the Policy for political campaigns will become applicable and followed. Until then, all political parties must adhere to the present policy. [17] The 3rd Respondent avers that it was correct in the decision it made against the Petitioner, and it did not violate any Constitutional principle or law. The 3rd Respondent prays that the Constitutional Court dismiss the Petition with costs. Petitioner's submissions on the Preliminary Objections [18] The Petitioner claims that they obtained the leave of the court to file an amended Petition to comply with the Rules, as per the direction of the court. The Petitioner further claims that the Petition is not time-barred as the breaches are continuous. There have been no laws enacted dealing with the right to freedom of expression for broadcasting and television. 4