Supreme court adjourns case on Celebrity Alcohol endorsement with no new date set
The Supreme Court of Ghana has for the third time adjourned its judgement on the landmark case against FDA’s ban on celebrity endorsement of alcoholic beverages.
The court on May 8 did not set a new date to pronounce judgement on the case.
The judgement was initially scheduled on May 8 following an earlier adjournment on April 10, 2024.
Plaintiff in the suit, Mark Darlington Osae provided the update of the case on a Facebook post stating “Supreme Court Update: Unfortunately, the case against the FDA has been adjourned yet again! No new date given yet.”
NOTICE! pic.twitter.com/HK4lEFTpLJ
— Mark Darlington (@MarkDarlington_) May 8, 2024
Background
The Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) in 2015 implemented a directive that placed a ban on celebrities from advertising for alcoholic beverages.
The FDA’s directive which barred the use of celebrities in advertisement for alcoholic beverages was aimed at protecting minors from being influenced by celebrities into alcoholism.
However, in 2022 Mark Darlington Osae, Manager of Hiplife artistes -Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze, filed a suit at the Supreme Court to challenge FDA’s directive.
The Plaintiff in the case 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.
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.”
