Veteran actress, Akofa Edjeani has disapproved of the recent Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Food and Drug Authority’s (FDA) directive to ban celebrities from commercializing alcoholic beverages.
Speaking in an interview with Johnnie Hughes on 3FM’s Sunrise, the actress believes there were no proper consultations by the FDA before the directive was rolled out.
She believes the FDA did not think through the guidelines accurately.
“It’s unfortunate and I don’t know learned men and women who will sit together and come out with this decision. I am not sure if it’s been well thought through.
“I don’t know if they understand our industry. Who did they consult concerning us, who did they talk to before taking this decision,” she noted on Friday, June 21.
She punched holes in the FDA’s directive by questioning what happens if a non-celebrity commercializes alcoholic beverage
“The thing is you are still advertising whether its by a celebrity or not. If the person will drink, they will drink. If they are saying we are influencing minors, they should she me a prove on that,” she said.
Background
The FDA in its guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published on February 1, 2016 stipulates that “No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising.”
The authority explained that the guideline was necessary to prevent minors from being addicted to alcohol due to the influence of celebrities.
The FDA further noted that the ban was in adherence with a policy by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and also part of efforts to protect children and young ones from being lured into alcoholism.
However, a citizen Mark Darlington filed a suit against the FDA’s directive praying the Apex court to hold as unconstitutional the directive as it violated the right against discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
But the Supreme court in a 5-2 majority decision on Wednesday, June 19 dismissed the case and upheld the FDA’s directive.
The court held that the directive by FDA was not unreasonable and excessive, adding that it didn’t contravene the provision of the constitution.
