On Wednesday, November 15, the Supreme Court witnessed the presence of popular Hiplife artiste, Michael Owusu Addo, widely known as Sarkodie, in a case challenging a guideline issued by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) that prohibits the use of celebrities and well-known figures in the Advertising of alcoholic products.
READ ALSO: "I Am Not Celebrated Enough In The Music Industry" - Medikal
The Nature of the Case
The case was brought before the court by Mark Darlington Osae, the manager of Hiplife artistes Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze. The essence of the plaintiff's argument revolves around the contention that the FDA's guideline is unconstitutional, citing a violation of the right against discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution. Acknowledging Article 17(1) which emphasizes equality before the law, and Article 17(2) which prohibits discrimination based on various grounds such as social or economic status, the plaintiff posits that the FDA's guideline oversteps the boundaries of constitutional rights.
Legal Proceedings and Adjournment
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court was expected to preside over the constitutional matter. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the case has been adjourned to January 17. Present at the court alongside Sarkodie was the plaintiff's legal representative, Bobby Banson.
Contentions and Legal Basis
The guideline in question, listed as 3.2.10 of the FDA's Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods, was initially published on February 1, 2016. It explicitly stipulates that "No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising." The FDA's position is grounded in the belief that such a guideline is a necessary measure to prevent the potential influence of celebrities on minors, thus mitigating the risk of underage alcohol consumption.
READ ALSO: Akosombo Dam Spillage: Sarkodie Declares Support For CitiFM's Campaign
Legal Demands and Constitutional Interpretation
Mr. Osae, in his petition, seeks a series of declarations from the apex court. These include requests for a declaration that the guideline is discriminatory, inconsistent with, and contravenes articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, rendering it unconstitutional. Furthermore, he requests that the court deems the guideline null, void, and unenforceable, in addition to an order to strike down the guideline entirely based on its inconsistency with the spirit and letter of the 1992 Constitution.
In essence, the case reflects a critical legal challenge questioning the compatibility of the FDA's advertising guideline with the constitutional protections of equality and non-discrimination. The outcome of this case holds significance not only for the involved parties but also for the broader legal interpretation of individual rights vis-à-vis regulatory controls over advertising and public influence.
Comments
Post a Comment