The Supreme Court has set April 10 to deliver judgement over the suit challenging a guideline by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) which prohibits celebrities and popular personalities from participating in advertisements involving alcoholic products.
The Plaintiff in the case, Mark Darlington Osae, Manager of Hiplife artistes -Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze, is seeking an order from the apex court to rule the FDA’s guideline as
unconstitutional as it violates the right to non-discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
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 on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status”.
When the case was called, lead counsel for the plaintiff, Bobby Banson made reference to citation which he noted will be relied on to make their case.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, presiding over the 7-member panel adjourned the hearing to April 10 for judgement to be delivered on the case.
Per the writ filed by Mark Darlington Osae on November 11, 2022, the artiste manager is seeking a declaration that “on a true and proper interpretation of Article 17(1) and (2) which guarantee equality before the law and prohibits 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.
“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 prohibits discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation amongst others and consequently null, void and unenforceable.
“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.”
Reacting to the development on Wednesday, media personality, playwright and CEO of Image Bureau, George Quaye indicated that he hopes the judgement would swing in the favour of celebrities, since they don’t set out to endorse products which are detrimental to young people in society.
“Celebrities have kids, they have families. Naturally, they would not want to endorse products that will go and affect their kids negatively. So, they are willing to be responsible and just as things are done responsibly, so we are hopeful for something in our favour.
“That at the end of the day, we can all sit with the FDA, jaw-jaw and find a way that even if celebrities endorse alcoholic products, it will still go in a way that children will be protected, although they’ll still be tasked to find ways to speak to children against alcoholism,” he told journalists at the Supreme Court.