Government. 84 Consequent to those concerns being voiced, national consultations were carried out by the relevant Select Parliamentary Committee after the second reading of the three Bills before Parliament – Constitution Amendment Bill 2020, Land and Titles Court Bill 2020 and the Judicature Bill 2020. The concerns highlighted the importance and the necessity of adequately engaging the public in public debate on important issues to ensure transparency and accountability. Finally, concerns were also raised regarding criticisms being made against certain politicians and political parties with some not only criticizing politicians and political parties regarding their agendas but also criticizing and defaming their families. The issue of politicians and their families being defamed is covered and addressed in Defamation section of this Report. It is important to highlight that public officials85 (including politicians) as well as public figures86 are exposed to various kinds of criticism. Under international standards on freedom of expression, both categories have to tolerate more, rather than less, criticism than ordinary citizens, since they are directly involved in matters of public concern and that consequently the law will offer them less protection.87 Any laws providing special protection for public officials would thus be inconsistent with such standard.88 In the context of freedom of expression and political debate it has been established by several international courts that there should be greater latitude in criticizing a public official, even to the extent of mistaken or inaccurate statements, provided that these were not made maliciously… public figures had far easier access to channels of communication to counteract false statements (emphasis added). 89 The above case studies highlight the importance of the need to promote and protect the right of citizens to effectively and adequately engage in public debate on important matters such as major reforms to the constitution, health system and customary land for instance, or criticizing politicians and government policy. Citizens must be able to express themselves and voice ideas freely on such important matters even if it involves a great amount of time and resources as well as severe criticisms. This also promotes the rights of citizens to be consulted and participate which is a core principle of a human rights based approach. 84 New Zealand Law Society, “Serious concerns raised about constitutional law changes in Samoa”, Legal News (4 May 2020) https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news/legal-news/serious-concerns-raised-about-constitutional-law-changes-in-samoa/. See also Anna Dziedzic, “Debating constitutional change in Samoa”, The Interpreter (5 May 2020) https://www.lowyinstitute.org/theinterpreter/debating-constitutional-change-samoa. 85 Public officials are persons who hold a function within the State administration, including heads of State, heads of government, other senior officials, or a function that is officially sanctioned by the State – defined in Article 19, “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, p. 23. 86 Public figures are individuals who also attract attention from the public, but do not hold any official role – defined in Article 19, “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, p. 23. 87 Article 19, “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, p. 23. 88 Article 19, “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, p. 23. 89 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964). In recent years this approach has been adopted, in different ways, in a wide variety of other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Pakistan, India and Zambia – see Joanna Stevens, “Sullivan's Travels”, Southern African Media Law Briefing, Vol.2 No. 1, April 1997. State of Human Rights Report 2021 | 27