With the International Press Institute in town this week, every top brass has been making the right kind of noises on Press freedom. Very commendable. But, I’m not throwing a party. It may have just been rhetoric. Talk, period.

It began right at the top, with President Mwai Kibaki talking of a proposed law to govern the media. At his welcome address last Sunday to IPI, the global media congress, the President left little doubt that his government would enact the much flaunted Freedom of Information Act. Then the media would operate freely. "The free flow of news and information is one of the hallmarks of democracy," he said. "An informed society is able to better participate in the design and execution of public policies."

I believe the President. It is such a society that is best placed to bask in prosperity.

And Vice-President Moody Awori must have been listening. When he came calling on Tuesday afternoon, the V-P took the good talk another mile. "The government is committed to the growth of free media," he said, "as we have learnt the hard way that there can be no democracy without an aggressive, free, challenging and — believe it or not — untrusting media."

But, there was also Attorney-General Amos Wako. For other reasons, the A-G is increasingly looking like a man who is about to be run out of town. Clearly, he was not in the mood for niceties this week. But, on Wednesday last week, Wako told journalists he was personally going to see to it that a progressive media law went to Parliament. A "facilitating law", he called it; a law that would turn media people into professionals.

The benefits of such a law were articulated by Government Spokesman Alfred Mutua, the former university don who, by consensus now, clearly landed the wrong job. He may be jinxed with first-class goofs, but Mutua still told journalists that the proposed Freedom of Information Act would harness access to public information. "The FOIA will not replace the existing laws but will complement them, and a law will be enacted to ensure that Government officials have to make information available," he said.

Let us return to the President, where it all began. "My government is … [working to] bring the legal framework in line with the current realities," the President told IPI. What about possible future realities? Ok, Parliament could enact a progressive media law. But, what happens when one day the realities are such that government can’t deal with a critical media? What will stop a mere quorum in Parliament — 16 men, for example — from throwing the good law out of the window?

No, Mr President. I don’t want a media law. Not even one crafted in heaven. I want something stronger. Something more tenable. Something designed to stand the test of time. Something a whacked dictator will find a hard time reversing.

I want a constitutional amendment. If your government means well, I want a constitutional amendment to the effect that Parliament shall make no law negating the freedom of the Press.

Forget that talk about Freedom of Information Act. We already have in our legal books some vague reference to freedom of speech. And for 40 years, that line has done us no good. But an amendment to the constitution; now that is different. The merits are enormous.

One, the right to publish and broadcast would be cast in stone. Media practitioners would not just be living a privilege, they’d be exercising a constitutional right. And we would never hear of the First Lady slapping a journalist. Two, debate on public issues would be uninhibited, robust and wide open. A guaranteed marketplace of ideas is, perhaps, the best symbol of freedom. Three, we would never again see a journalist dragged to some police station, ostensibly to record a statement. And public officials would no longer hold the media in perpetual dread of trivial lawsuits. Four, the Press would have the right to satirise public figures, even when such satires are outrageous; because satire plays a prominent role in public debate. Five, the government would not tell any Press, even its own, what it must report. Six, the government may not be required to furnish information to the Press, but it would be obliged to allow the Press to observe many functions of government. Seven, journalists would not be obliged to disclose their sources of information. So whistle blowers would be better protected, by law. Eight, government would not enforce laws that discriminate against the Press. A constitutional rubric prohibiting that would serve as a shield against an overzealous government.

Above all, where courts may be asked to issue a restraining order on publication, judges would first look over their shoulders at the constitution. And there they would find a heavy presumption in favour of Press freedom.

Then, we may just have a shot at that prosperity the President was talking about.