people of Samoa, so that they may be aware of the applicant’s views, and those of his Party, on all important questions relating to the well-being and good government of Samoa. In its assessment of issues concerning the applicant’s freedom of expression the court stated: 82 Indispensable to …. accountability and …. responsibility is freedom of communication, at least in relation to public affairs and political discussion. Only by exercising that freedom can the citizen communicate his or her views on the wide range of matters that may call for, or are relevant to, political action or decision. Only by exercising that freedom can the citizen criticise government decisions and actions, seek to bring about change, call for action where none has been taken and in this way influence the elected representatives. Absent of such freedom of communication, representative government would fail to achieve its purpose, namely, government by the people through their elected representatives; government would cease to be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people and, in that sense, would cease to be truly representative. The efficacy of representative government depends also upon free communication on such matters between all persons, groups and other bodies in the community. That is because individual judgment, whether that of the elector, the representative or the candidate, on so many issues turns upon free public discussion in the media of the views of all interested persons, groups and bodies and on public participation in, and access to, that discussion. In truth, in a representative democracy, public participation in political discussion is a central element of the political process. The court also addressed the issue of imposing restrictions in order to maintain the integrity of the political process as argued by the defendants in the case. It provided that:83 The enhancement of the political process and the integrity of that process are by no means opposing or conflicting interests and that is one reason why the Court should scrutinise very carefully any claim that freedom of communication must be restricted in order to protect the integrity of the political process. Experience has demonstrated on so many occasions in the past that, although freedom of communication may have some detrimental consequences for society, the manifest benefits it brings to an open society generally outweigh the detriments. All too often attempts to restrict the freedom in the name of some imagined necessity have tended to stifle public discussion and criticism of government. The Court should be astute not to accept at face value claims by the legislature and the Executive that freedom of communication will, unless curtailed, bring about corruption and distortion of the political process. More recently, several concerns were expressed that changes to be brought about by the constitutional reforms in 2020 in Samoa were not properly debated nor comprehensively consulted on by the 82 83 Efi v Attorney-General of Samoa [2000] WSSC 22 (1 August 2000) Mason J [138]. Efi v Attorney-General of Samoa [2000] WSSC 22 (1 August 2000) Mason J [145]. State of Human Rights Report 2021 | 26