Mark Osae
The Supreme Court has set April 10, 2024, to deliver a judgement on a ban imposed by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) on celebrities advertising alcoholic products in the country via any medium.
Mark Osae, the manager of Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze, is at the Supreme Court challenging the 2015 FDA decision aimed at protecting minors from being influenced by celebrities to take to alcoholism.
The FDA regulation states that, “no well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising.”
He argues, among others, that the FDA’s ban on celebrities advertising alcoholic beverages is discriminatory against the creative arts industry, and denies them of a revenue stream.
Lawyers in the case have all followed the order of the court, and filed a joint memorandum of issues to be determined by the court, giving the Apex Court an opportunity to deal with the controversy once and for all.
Mr. Osae is represented by Bobby Banson, while the FDA is represented by Justin Amenuvor.
A seven-member panel of the court, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo on Wednesday, January 17, adjourned the case to April 10, 2024, to give its decision on the matter.
Mark Osae, in a writ filed on November 11, 2022, contends that the FDA’s regulation is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
He avers that Articles 17(1) and 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution guarantee equality before the law, and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, and consequently the FDA regulation is null, void, and unenforceable.
He is, therefore, seeking a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 17(1) and (2) which guarantee equality before the law, and prohibit 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 February 1, 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 is also seeking 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 February 1, 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.
Mr. Osae, in his writ, is praying the Supreme Court for an order striking down Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the FDA on February 1, 2016, as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution, and as such a nullify.
He also wants an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants – FDA and the Office of the Attorney General, their agents or servants or assigns under the pretext of acting under Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the FDA on February 1, 2016 from doing anything to prevent any well-known personality or professional from advertising alcoholic products.
Wendy Shay, Shatta Wale, Brother Sammy, Kuami Eugene, and Camidoh, are among celebrities who have spoken against the law and had called on powers that be to repeal it.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak