Supreme Court dismisses suit challenging FDA guideline on using celebrities for alcohol advertising

The Supreme Court, by a 5-2 majority decision, has dismissed a suit challenging a guideline by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) which prohibits celebrities and well-known personalities from advertising alcoholic products.

In a ruling today, a seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, held that the FDA guideline is not unreasonable and does not contradict Article 17 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.

“This suit fails in its entirety and is dismissed,” Justice Torkonoo stated.

The case was filed by Mark Darlington Osae, Manager of Hiplife artists Reggie 'N' Bollie, and Skrewfaze.

Article 17(1) of the Constitution stipulates that all persons shall be equal before the law, while Article 17(2) states that “a person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social or economic status.”

The plaintiff argued that the FDA guideline is unconstitutional as it violates the right against discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.

Ban

Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods was published by the FDA on February 1, 2016. It states that "No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising."

The FDA contended that the guideline was necessary to prevent minors from being influenced by celebrities to consume alcohol.

In November last year, Mr. Osae, who is also the Chairman and Co-Founder of Ghana Music Alliance, took the FDA and the Attorney General to the apex court. He sought a declaration that “on a true and proper interpretation of Article 17(1) and (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 1st February 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."

He also sought a declaration that “on a true and proper interpretation of Article 17(1) and (2), Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on 1st February 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.”

He further sought “an order striking down Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on 1st February 2016 as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and as such a nullity.”