Supreme Court Rules: Celebrities Cannot Advertise Alcoholic Products

The Supreme Court of Ghana on Wednesday dismissed a suit, challenging the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA)’s guideline against using celebrities for advertising alcoholic products.

Graphic Online reports that the Supreme Court by a 5-2 majority decision dismissed a suit challenging a guideline by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) which prohibits celebrities and well-known personalities from being used for advertising alcoholic products.

In the ruling on Wednesday June 19, 2024, a seven member panel of the apex court presided over by Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, held that the FDA guideline is not  unreasonable neither does it contradict Article 17 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.

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

Full ruling to be ready by Friday, June 21, 2024.

The case was filed by Mark Darlington Osae, Manager of Hiplife artistes – Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze.

Article 17(1) of the 1992 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”.

It was the case of the plaintiff that the guideline by the FDA is unconstitutional as it violated the right against discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.

Ban

Guideline 3.2.10 of 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 stop minors from being hooked to alcohol due to the influence of celebrities.

In November 2023, Mr Osae, who is also the Chairman and Co-Founder of Ghana Music Alliance, dragged the FDA and the Attorney General to the apex court.

He was 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.

He was  also asking the apex court for 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 prohibits discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation amongst others and consequently null, void and unenforceable.”

He was also seeking “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”