News

Supreme Court Dismisses “Celebrity” Case Against the FDA

Plaintiff, Mark Darlington challenged the guidelines of FDA at Supreme Court as he deemed same discriminatory. Edwin A for 233 legal

Wednesday 19th June 2024

The Apex Court of Ghana this afternoon dismissed an action by Mark Darlington (a private citizen) seeking the enforcement and original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, 1992.

Mark Darlington (“Plaintiff”) contends that the 2016 guidelines issued by the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) pursuant to its powers sins and offends the Constitution, 1992 and same should be declared void.

Specifically, the Plaintiff took issue with guideline 3.2.10 which prohibit alcoholic beverage companies from employing “well-known personalities or professionals,” such as celebrities and sports figures, in alcoholic beverage advertising. 

The Plaintiff’s case was that this guideline is discriminatory because it contravenes Article 17 of the Constitution,1992 as that said provision guarantees equality before the law and further prohibits discrimination against any person on grounds of economic or social status.

The (FDA) established under the Public Health Act, 2012 (Act 851),and tasked with setting and enforcing standards in the sale of food, drugs, substances, and other related products vigorously contested the Plaintiff’s claim. 

Through the Attorney General, the FDA argued that for the purposes of safeguarding the public’s interest and given the huge influences of celebrities especially in the era social media, there was the need to balance the rights and freedoms of the Plaintiff as stipulated in the constitution viz a viz the interest of the general public. The FDA further argued that rights and freedoms no matter their nature are not absolute; they are subject and subordinated to higher ends in appropriate circumstances, including public safety. 

Essentially, the Supreme Court was being called upon to decide, on one hand the duty and power of the State to act through its institutions such as the FDA( in protecting the health and morals of impressionable minors and on the other hand the constitutional/economic rights of famous Ghanaians in advertising alcoholic products.

 The Supreme Court, choosing the former, ruled/found that guidelines 3.2.10, issued by the FDA is not unreasonable and excessive, nor does same contravene article 17 (1) (e), 2 of the constitution, 1992.

The PLAINTIFF’s Action was thus dismissed entirely with full judgement to be issued by the court on Friday 21st June 2024

By Legal Desk

Recent Posts

MONDAY ESSAY: Docket Triage: Judicial Economy In An Era Of Legal Overload

In Ghana’s Fourth Republic, justice increasingly competes with time. Courtrooms from Accra to Tamale groan…

2 days ago

Case of the Week: Tetteh v. Intertek Minerals Ltd

This case interrogates the boundaries between resignation and constructive dismissal, and clarifies the evidential burden…

5 days ago

From the Bench’s Eyes: Demeanour in an Era OF Written Testimony and Virtual Hearings

Modern justice delivery has quietly displaced a major part of the action in the witness…

5 days ago

Ghana’s Investment Revolution: Open for Business, Protected for Citizens

Beyond capital thresholds, the new Act strengthens local participation requirements, including a 75% local skilled…

5 days ago

MONDAY ESSAY: 150 Years of Finality– The Supreme Court of Ghana: From Crown Instrument to Constitutional Guardian

But the fact that we argue through writs, not coups, is the Court’s victory.From Chalmers…

2 weeks ago

Functus Officio and Judicial Duty: Understanding Judicial Finality and When Judges Stay Bound

Once a court has completed a case, it washes its hands and moves forward without…

3 weeks ago