Kwaku Azar slams Feddie Blay's ‘bosom theory’ as threat to Ghana’s constitutional democracy

Renowned legal scholar and constitutional advocate Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, widely known as Kwaku Azar, has launched a blistering attack on remarks made by former NPP Chairman Freddie Blay, condemning his suggestion that presidential term limits are flexible and subject to judicial discretion.

Blay’s comments, now infamously linked to what critics have dubbed the “bosom theory”—the notion that “the law is in the bosom of the judge”—have triggered alarm bells across Ghana’s legal, academic, and civil society landscape.

Describing the proposition as both “disappointing” and “dangerous,” Kwaku Azar argued that such reasoning threatens to erode the integrity of the constitution and opens the floodgates to judicial abuse and creeping authoritarianism.

“To flirt with the notion that two terms may not mean two terms is to normalise judicial pliancy—and to flirt with constitutional revisionism disguised as interpretation. It is a concert masquerading as constitutional law,” Kwaku Azar warned in a sharply worded rebuttal.

Freddie Blay, a seasoned political figure who once chaired the Convention People’s Party (CPP) before joining the NPP, stoked controversy during a recent interview in which he described term limits as “elastic,” implying they could be reinterpreted by judges. “The law is in the bosom of the judge,” he claimed—words that have been met with fierce pushback.

In response, Kwaku Azar released what he called “GOGO’s Top 10 Reasons to Reject the Bosom Theory”—a searing indictment of the legal and democratic implications of such a philosophy:

• It Undermines Legal Certainty – If “two terms” is up for debate, the Constitution becomes a puzzle of ambiguity.

• It Weakens Judicial Legitimacy – Judges are bound to the law, not their whims or political leanings.

• It Enables Authoritarian Creep – Vague readings of term limits provide a backdoor for indefinite rule.

• It Encourages Strategic Litigation – Legal outcomes hinge on panel composition rather than constitutional principle.

• It Corrupts Judicial Appointments – Judges may be picked not for merit, but for political loyalty.

• It Makes the Constitution a Suggestion, Not a Standard – The text becomes malleable, not mandatory.

• It Fuels Panel Rigging – Judicial panels could be manipulated to produce desired results.

• It Demotes Parliament and Elevates Panels – The judiciary eclipses the legislature in shaping national policy.

• It Destroys Equality Before the Law – Power and privilege distort legal fairness.

• It Sabotages Democracy from Within – Democratic norms can collapse through “interpretation” without the need for a coup.

Kwaku Azar’s statement has gained traction among legal experts and democratic watchdogs who fear the creeping politicisation of the judiciary, particularly with Ghana’s next general elections looming.

His urgent call is a reminder that while constitutions may be interpreted by judges, they are owned by the people—and tampering with their clarity risks destabilising the very foundation of Ghana’s democracy.