The Speaker of Parliament's comment is absolutely out of place. The manner he went about it is wrong.  When the 1992 Constitution in Article 162 says no censorship, it implies that nobody including the leadership of Parliament, shall control the media in the discharge of duties. The speaker cannot on this day, stage and age determine the angle of the story. The editorial and coverage prerogative rests solely at hands of journalists and not according to the whims and caprices of any individual or a group of individuals. The Speaker cannot do what he has threatened to do.  The constitution is very clear what media freedom is and it is not for anybody to pick and choose what it means. To ban journalists, it is an empty threat. So if delegation pays a courtesy call on the Speaker at his office during a debate in the chamber, is it wrong for journalists to cover? The right to practice journalism is not derived from a mere accreditation from the Speaker of Parliament. That will be dictatorial. I am certain that he misfired and I will not be surprised if the Speaker attempts to make an amendment to his comment through Public Affairs of Parliament with the Press Corps within 24hours. By 24hours, Aaron Mike Oquaye would have agreed with the dissenting views that he made a wrong and disturbing statement. I don't see him standing by what he said even if he will not openly withdraw the statement. Otherwise, I don't think his statement should be taken seriously because failure to amend his position on the matter means he is not ready to be on top of issues. My reason is rooted in the fact that such a pronouncement flaunts the very democratic principles upon which the state rests.  However, I believe we are still in the era of errors and corrections. The Speaker is at liberty to correct that statement. When a group of people sings in a single voice that you are wrong, it means moral obligation is imposed for you to amend your ways whilst still honourable. Journalists are not used to empty threats and I think the Speaker should be used to this fact. Journalists are at liberty to determine which issues pass through the gate and which matters are left behind the gate. It is called gate keeping role of the media. We do not share that role with organs of government nor delegate that obligation to the political fulcrum.