The Supreme Court will today, June 19, 2024 deliver its judgment in the case against the Food and Drug Authority’s (FDA) ban on alcoholic advertisements by celebrities.
The suit was filed by Mark Darlington Osae, the manager of Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze after he was dissatisfied by the FDA’s directive.
The court has twice deferred its judgement on the matter, the recent being May 8 and has set today, June 19 as the date to rule on the matter.
The Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), had earlier issued a directive that placed a ban on celebrities from advertising for alcoholic beverages.
The FDA’s directive which barred the use of celebrities in advertisement for alcoholic beverages was aimed at protecting minors from being influenced by celebrities into alcoholism.
However, the Plaintiff in the case, Mark Darlington Osae, Manager of Hiplife artistes -Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze, is seeking an order from the apex court to rule the FDA’s guideline as unconstitutional as it violates the right to non-discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
Reliefs Sought:
(a) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(1) and 17(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.
(b) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(1) and 17(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 prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among 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 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution, and as such nullified.
(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or assigns under the pretext of acting under Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, from doing anything to prevent any well-known personality or professional from advertising alcoholic products.
