The Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Food and Drugs Authority’s (FDA) guidelines that prohibit celebrities from advertising alcoholic beverages, reaffirming the constitutionality of the directive in a landmark decision.
In a majority 5-2 ruling, the apex court, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, upheld the FDA’s 2016 guideline, which restricts well-known personalities and professionals from endorsing alcoholic products. The directive, part of broader regulations on food and beverage advertisements, aims to curb the influence of celebrity endorsements on public consumption of alcohol.
The suit, filed by Mark Darlington Osae, manager of the musical duo Reggie N Bollie, contended that the ban was discriminatory and violated Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution. These articles guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on various grounds, including social or economic status and occupation.
Osae’s lawyer, Bobby Banso, argued that the FDA’s regulation unfairly targets the creative arts industry, depriving celebrities of a significant income source. The writ sought multiple reliefs, including a declaration that the guideline was unconstitutional, an order to strike it down, and a perpetual injunction preventing the FDA from enforcing it.
“The FDA’s directive is not only discriminatory but also detrimental to the livelihoods of many in the creative industry,” Banso stated in court. He highlighted that the ban affects notable figures such as Wendy Shay, Shatta Wale, Brother Sammy, Kuami Eugene, and Camidoh, who have vocally opposed the guideline and called for its repeal.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court found the FDA’s directive consistent with constitutional provisions. The court emphasized that public health and safety considerations justify the restriction on alcohol advertisements featuring celebrities, who wield significant influence over consumer behavior.
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions across the creative industry. Proponents of the directive argue that it is necessary to protect vulnerable populations, particularly minors, from the potentially harmful influence of alcohol advertising. Critics, however, maintain that the ban infringes on their economic rights and stifles the creative arts sector.
In response to the decision, Wendy Shay expressed her disappointment, saying, “This ruling is a setback for us. Endorsements are a vital part of our income, and this ban severely impacts our ability to earn a livelihood.”
Shatta Wale also weighed in, urging the FDA to reconsider its stance. “We understand the need for regulations, but there must be a balance that allows us to thrive as artists while promoting responsible drinking,” he said.
The FDA, on the other hand, has welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. “This ruling reinforces our commitment to safeguarding public health. The influence of celebrities on consumer choices, especially among the youth, cannot be underestimated,” an FDA spokesperson stated.
As the debate continues, stakeholders from both the public health and creative sectors are calling for a dialogue to explore potential compromises that protect public health without unduly harming the creative industry.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse on public health, advertising, and the rights of individuals within the creative arts industry in Ghana.
