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

Stay of Execution in Criminal Proceedings: Can the State Stay the Release of an Acquitted Person?

By parity of reasoning, there can be no stay of execution of a judgment which…

4 days ago

Full Speech: Justice Yaw Appau at the Official Launch of the Supreme Court @150 Anniversary Celebration

This occasion marks not merely the passage of time, but a significant milestone in the…

5 days ago

Read the full Judgment: Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu vrs The Republic

A three-member panel of the court of appeal unanimously allowed Sedinam Tamakloe's appeal, quashed her…

5 days ago

Case of the Week: Madam Randi Lartey, Samuel Nii Otoo Ankrah and Mrs Agnes Esi Ankrah v. Yaw Aboah Djin and Justiny Company Limited

This case, decided by the Supreme Court of Ghana, answered both questions- and delivered a…

6 days ago

MONDAY ESSAY: More than Judgments: The Legacy of a Legal Year

Judgments are not mere decisions, they are lessons and also, they become the precedent upon…

5 days ago

Case of the Week: Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Wontumi & 2 Others

Can the holder of a mining lease lawfully permit another person to undertake mining activities…

2 weeks ago