Supreme court upholds FDA’s ban on celebrity alcohol adverts
The Supreme Court has upheld the Food and Drugs Authority’s (FDA) guidelines prohibiting celebrities from advertising alcoholic beverages, dismissing a suit that sought to challenge the constitutionality of this directive. This ruling comes as a significant decision that impacts the advertising landscape, particularly within the creative arts industry.
In 2016, the FDA implemented guidelines aimed at regulating the advertisement of foods and beverages. Among these guidelines was a specific provision that prohibited the use of well-known personalities and professionals in advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The FDA argued that this measure was necessary to protect public health and to prevent the promotion of alcohol consumption through influential figures.
Mark Darlington Osae, the manager of musicians Reggie N Bollie, found the directive to be discriminatory and unconstitutional. He filed a suit seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that the FDA’s directive violated Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the Constitution. These articles ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination based on social or economic status, occupation, among other grounds. Mr. Osae argued that the FDA’s directive unfairly targeted celebrities and professionals in the creative arts industry, depriving them of a significant source of income.
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision of five to two, upheld the constitutionality of the FDA’s directive. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, ruled that the FDA’s guidelines were within the authority’s mandate to regulate advertisements for the protection of public health. The decision reaffirmed the FDA’s stance that using celebrities to promote alcoholic beverages could have a considerable impact on the public, particularly on younger demographics who may be influenced by these figures.
Mr. Osae’s lawyer, Bobby Banso, argued fervently that the FDA’s regulation was discriminatory against the creative arts industry. He asserted that the directive was inconsistent with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, specifically Articles 17(1) and 17(2). These articles guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their social or economic status, occupation, and other factors. Banso contended that the FDA’s guideline singled out celebrities and professionals, preventing them from engaging in lawful economic activities.
The writ filed by Mr. Osae sought multiple declarations from the court. First, it sought a declaration that the FDA’s guideline was discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the Constitution. Second, it sought a declaration that the prohibition on celebrities advertising alcoholic beverages violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. Third, the writ requested an order to strike down the FDA’s guideline as unconstitutional. Finally, it sought a perpetual injunction to prevent the FDA from enforcing this guideline against well-known personalities and professionals.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court found that the FDA’s guideline did not violate the Constitution. The court reasoned that the guideline was a legitimate exercise of the FDA’s regulatory powers aimed at protecting public health. The majority opinion held that the prohibition on the use of celebrities in alcohol advertisements was a reasonable measure to curb the promotion of alcohol consumption, particularly among impressionable audiences.
The decision has elicited reactions from notable figures in the creative industry. Celebrities such as Wendy Shay, Shatta Wale, Brother Sammy, Kuami Eugene, and Camidoh have voiced their opposition to the directive. They argue that endorsements of alcoholic beverages are a crucial source of income for them, and the ban adversely affects their livelihoods. These figures have called for the repeal of the FDA’s guideline, highlighting the economic impact on the creative arts industry.
The ruling by the Supreme Court underscores the tension between public health regulations and economic interests within the creative arts sector. While the FDA maintains that its guidelines are essential for protecting public health, stakeholders in the creative industry argue that such regulations unfairly target their means of livelihood. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the authority of regulatory bodies like the FDA to implement measures aimed at safeguarding public health, even if such measures have economic repercussions for certain sectors.
