The Supreme Court has fixed April 10, 2024 to deliver judgement on the case in which Mark Darlington Osae has filed a suit against directives that banned celebrities in alcoholic advertisements.
The Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), had issued a directive that placed a ban on celebrities from advertising for alcoholic beverages.
A seven member panel of the apex Court chaired by Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo on Wednesday, January 17, fixed the date after hearing all parties in the matter.
With the exception of the Counsel for the Applicant, Bobby Banson who pointed to the panel of one other authority to add, the rest of the FDA represented by Justine Amenuvor and a Senior State Attorney for the Attorney General’s Office all relied on their statement of cases and processes filed.
The panel consequently fixed April 10, 2024 for judgement.
EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent Murtala Inusah, who is at the Supreme Court reports that a few of the celebrities were present in court compared to the last sitting on November 15, 2023.
Sammy Awuku, the Director General of the National Lottery Authority who is with the legal team of the Applicant was present at the Supreme Court.
Background
The FDA’s directives which barred the use of celebrities in plugging alcoholic beverages was aimed at protecting minors from being influenced by celebrities into alcoholism.
Mark Osae, the manager of Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze dissatisfied with the directive issued a writ at the Supreme Court on November 11, 2022, saying the FDA’s 2015 regulations are discriminatory against the creative arts industry.
The plaintiff (Mark Darlington Osae), also a music publisher at Perfect Note Publishing, wants the Supreme Court to take down that regulation.
Mark Osae, who is the Chairman and Co-Founder of Ghana Music Alliance, said the FDA directive which ordered that, “no well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising,” is inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 17(1) and 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
He contended that, Articles 17(1) and 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution guarantee quality before the law and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, and consequently null, void, and unenforceable.
Before the action was initiated at the Supreme Court, some of the stakeholders in the creative industry including, Wendy Shay, Shatta Wale, Brother Sammy, Kuami Eugene, and Camidoh, had all spoken against the law and had called on powers that be to repeal it.
The FDA’s directives discourage the use of celebrities in the promotion of alcoholic beverages via any medium.
This policy forms part of the efforts by the government of Ghana to protect children and young people from alcohol marketing.
But the plaintiff ignores this reality and argues that the child protection measure would rob the entertainment industry of potential streams of income.
In the writ issued on November 11, the plaintiff, Mark Darlington Osae said those areas of the FDA’s 2015 regulations are tantamount to discrimination on grounds of economic status, and occupation among others.
The artist, manager, and music publisher is thus asking the Supreme Court to render as unconstitutional the guidelines which stipulate that, “No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising.” Mr Darlington Osae is the Chairman and Co-Founder of Ghana Music Alliance.
Reliefs
(a).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.
(b). 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.
(c). An order striking down Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of foods published by the Ist Defendant on Ist February 2016 as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and as such a nullify.
(d). An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or servants or assigns under the pretest of acting under Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of foods published by the 1st Defendant on Isl February 2016 from doing anything to prevent any well-known personality or professional from advertising alcoholic products.
Source: starrfm.com.gh
