Popular Ghanaian actress and television personality Joselyn Dumas has criticised the Food and Drugs Authority’s (FDA) decision to ban celebrities from advertising alcoholic beverages.

She argued that the FDA’s claim that celebrities serve as role models for children and therefore should not be alcohol brand ambassadors is unfair and misguided.

In her view, the responsibility rests with parents to properly raise their children, and celebrities should not be blamed if parents fail to do so.“Alcohol is part of entertainment. So, if you’re going to ban us from endorsing alcoholic beverages, then ban alcoholic beverages as well.”

“You’re saying that because I’m a role model, a child is going to look at me advertising alcohol and start drinking…If you can’t raise your child, what has that to do with me? It’s a personal choice,” she stated on the "Keeping It Real" show.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by KOJO AB (@kojo_ab_)

Last year, a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu, ruled that the Food and Drugs Authority's (FDA) guideline prohibiting celebrities from promoting alcoholic beverages is discriminatory and should be invalidated.

Justice Ackah-Yensu declared that the rule, which states "No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising," is deemed “unconstitutional.”

As one of the two judges who opposed the majority 5-2 decision supporting the FDA’s ban on celebrity endorsements of alcoholic drinks, Justice Ackah-Yensu labeled the directive as “unconstitutional.”

In her dissenting opinion, outlined in a 75-page judgment delivered on June 19, 2024, and supported by Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, but made public on July 15, 2024, Justice Ackah-Yensu criticized the FDA guidelines as “discriminatory.”

“In conclusion, I am convinced that the Plaintiff has made a compelling case that supports the conclusion that Guideline 3.2.10, which seeks to debar ‘well-known personalities and professionals’ from engaging in alcoholic beverages advertisement, is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

“I therefore declare Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant (FDA) on February 1, 2016, is discriminatory, inconsistent with, and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional.

“Accordingly, I hereby order the striking down of Guideline 3.2.10 of the said Guidelines as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution.

“Finally, the Defendants, their agents, servants, or assigns are perpetually restrained from acting under the said Guideline 3.2.10,” Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu stated.

Conclusion

In summarizing Justice Ackah-Yensu’s viewpoint, she stated, “I concur with the Plaintiff that many individuals engage in these advertisements as a means of earning a living. Consequently, it is an unconstitutional effort to undermine their economic opportunities simply because they can capture public interest.”

“I do not arrive at these conclusions oblivious of this Court being a policy court, and indeed empowered to direct the policy of the State,” she stated to buttress her point.

“I must state without equivocation that I subscribe fully to the discourse against the infiltration of our society, and especially motivating our young ones and minors to engage in alcohol and drug abuse.

“My subscription notwithstanding, I am guided by the constitutional tenets, its letter, and spirit.

“As admonished by the Court in the famous Tufour v Attorney-General (1980) GLR 637, every conduct must conform to the due process of law.

“The 1st Defendant must design a mechanism that is consistent with the Constitution to attain the mischief it seeks to cure with the publication of these guidelines, especially Guideline 3.2.10.

“Presently, however, in my view, Guideline 3.2.10 is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution. As aforesaid, there are already in place restrictions provided by the Liquor License Act and Guidelines 3.2.1 to 3.2.9 to ensure the responsible use of alcohol for public safety and health.

“And if Parliament finds it necessary to exclude any specific and defined group from advertising alcoholic beverages, it may so legislate.

“But for now, the blanket prohibition of persons who are said to be ‘well-known within society’ to advertise alcoholic beverages is discriminatory, arbitrary, and in contravention of the 1992 Constitution and same ought to be declared a nullity.

“In conclusion, I am convinced that the Plaintiff has made a compelling case that supports the conclusion that Guideline 3.2.10, which seeks to debar ‘well-known personalities and professionals’ from engaging in alcoholic beverages advertisement, is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

“I therefore declare Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, is discriminatory, inconsistent with, and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional.

“Accordingly, I hereby order the striking down of Guideline 3.2.10 of the said Guidelines as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution.

“Finally, the Defendants, their agents, servants, or assigns are perpetually restrained from acting under the said Guideline 3.2.10.”

On June 19, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 majority ruling, affirmed the FDA’s directive prohibiting celebrities from promoting alcoholic beverages.

The seven-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, determined that the FDA guideline was neither overly restrictive nor in violation of the 1992 Constitution.

“We find from the above that the Defendant has authority under the Public Health Act, 2012, Act 851, to issue guidelines in connection with food and drugs, including alcoholic beverages in order to regulate the production and consumption of these items with the aim of protecting and promoting the general well-being and health of all persons in Ghana.

“We find that guideline 3.2.10 was issued by the 15 Defendant within the generalpowers conferred on the 1st Defendant by the Public Health Act, 2012, Act 851.

“We hold that guideline 3.2.10 is not unreasonable or excessive and that it is in the interest of the public health of Ghana. Consequently, guideline 3.2.10 is not discriminatory and it is neither inconsistent with nor contravenes articles 17(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.

“The Plaintiff’s action therefore fails in its entirety and it is therefore dismissed,” the Majority stated.

The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, along with Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mariama Owusu, and George Kingsley Koomson.

In 2015, the FDA introduced a directive prohibiting celebrities from endorsing alcoholic drinks.

The directive aimed to safeguard minors and promote public health.

Dissatisfied with this directive, Mark Darlington Osae, an artist manager, took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the FDA’s rules violated principles of equality and discriminated against the creative sector.