Kenya certainly isn't known for its transparent politcs, but I was still surprised its government came so close last week to passing a media bill which would have required editors to disclose their sources. If reporters had been told they were no longer allowed to protect confidential informants, news bureaus in Nairobi would have had to consider seriously packing up and moving shop.

On the surface, President Mwai Kibaki's veto last Wednesday seems like a victory for reporters here, hundreds of whom marched in silent protest on August 15. Kibaki said he worried the bill could act as "a great inhibition of press freedom and undermine the democratic strides we have made as a nation so far." Well, duh. The question is why the bill sat on his desk for nearly two weeks before he came to this seemingly obvious conclusion. The answer likely has a lot to do with Kibaki's bid for re-election in December. Relations between his government and the media have been tense for some time, particularly over the press' successful unraveling of a series of scandals involving senior public officers and Cabinet ministers. Last year, in what some consider retaliation, armed masked policemen raided Nairobi's Standard newspaper offices, switching off its TV channel for supposedly inciting ethnic hatred. So what better way to win back the media's hearts than to deliver a dramatic veto securing their freedom of expression. (And is it just coincidence that it was some of Kibaki's main political backers who voted in favor of the bill on the floor of the House to begin with?)

My guess is it won't be so simple for Kibaki to gain the media's support, and this debate isn't quite over yet. The bill will now go back to Parliament which will either delete the controversial clause or could reject Kibaki's proposal if 65 percent of MPs vote against it. Either way, it's only August, so you can look forward to four more months of these shady political dealings.