After analysing the content of speeches made by certain politicians in the recent past, it is obvious that matters were bound to come to some unpleasant end.

While the speakers appeared to exercise freedom of expression, a fundamental right when addressing rallies and media, it was clear their acts were infringing on the rights of other Kenyans. Consequently, recent arrests and appearance in court of a number of politicians in the 'No' camp was no surprise to many political analysts.

After the turmoil which followed the 2007 general elections, Kenyans developed certain sensitivities which every politician and public speaker needs to observe whenever addressing the public. On its part, the government has no option but to ensure that laws against hate speech and incitement are applied. In any case, such laws can only serve their purpose as preventative measures.

As expected, those negatively affected by government crackdown on hate speech and incitement will view this action as discriminatory and an abuse of their freedom of expression. They may have a point. However, listening to some of the television clips, a few speakers did make more offending utterances than others.

Furthermore, it is important to note that international human rights laws condemn hate speech and obligate governments to legislate against it. As this country embraces democratic governance, even the press will find that certain limitations exist in the statute books to moderate their practice of journalism, particularly broadcasts.

The comforting aspect of these limitations is that legislation establishing regulations is required to set clear guidelines, otherwise, events such as the broadcast of hate messages which set Rwanda ablaze can easily occur in Kenya.

Other promised rights in free societies do hit a snag too. The current trend among democracies to enable public access to government information through the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act is not without hurdles.

Even after legislation, reading through sections of this law makes it sound like a "Freedom of No Information Act" as it repeatedly grants relevant ministers powers to determine which information is accessible to the public. This is inevitable since governments are secretive by nature owing to sensitivity of information touching on defence, intelligence and foreign policy.

Private interests also stand in the way of Freedom of Information Act when it comes to personnel and medical files citing an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Yet, freedom of information is considered an essential ingredient of open government. What all these examples demonstrate is that no freedom is without limits or checks.

Politics being an inexact science, mumbling its concepts do not mean one is making a water-tight statement. For instance, the gradual drift towards acceptance of a presidential system of government has reiterated the concept of separation of powers.

While this concept is ideal as a guide in designing a balanced and self-regulating government, it was borne out of a misinterpretation by a French political philosopher while observing the structure and working of the British constitutional system. Applying this principle as though it were a mathematical theorem when arguing one's case is misleading.

Mr Osoro is a political analyst and media consultant.