The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit seeking to declare unconstitutional the Food and Drugs Authority’s (FDA) guidelines that prohibit celebrities from advertising for alcoholic beverages.
The suit was filed by Mark Darlington Osae, the manager for Musicians Reggie N Bollie.
He had argued that the directive was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
He filed the suit after the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) in 2016 placed a ban on celebrities from advertising alcoholic beverages.
The plaintiff in his suit prayed the court to injunct the Food and Drugs Authority by interpreting articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the constitution to mean that the directive is discriminatory.
The lawyer for Mr. Osage, Bobby Banso, argued that the FDA’s 2015 regulation banning celebrities from advertising alcohol is discriminatory against the creative arts industry.
He told the court that the FDA directive, which states “no well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising, is inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 17(1) and 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.”
He contended that Articles 17(1) and 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, and consequently makes the directive null, void, and unenforceable.
The writ also sought the following reliefs;
(a) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(1) and 17(2), which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, which provides that “No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising,” is discriminatory, inconsistent with, and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional.
(b) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(1) and 17(2), Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, which prohibits well-known personalities and professionals from advertising alcoholic products, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, and consequently null, void, and unenforceable.
(c) An order striking down Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution, and as such nullified.
(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or assigns under the pretext of acting under Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, from doing anything to prevent any well-known personality or professional from advertising alcoholic products.
However, in a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, maintained the directive’s validity.
The court further affirmed that celebrities cannot market alcoholic beverages. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo delivered a shortened version of the verdict before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 19, saying the FDA’s mandate did not violate the Constitution.
The full verdict is scheduled to be made public on Friday, June 21.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
