2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a challenge to Guideline 3.2.10 issued by the Food and Drugs Authority, prohibiting well-known personalities from advertising alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff argued that the guideline violated the equality and anti-discrimination clauses in the Constitution. Defendants countered, citing public health and safety justifications. The Supreme Court held that while the Plaintiff had standing to invoke its jurisdiction, Guideline 3.2.10 is justified, reasonable, and not discriminatory under the Constitution. A dissenting opinion argued the Guideline was indeed discriminatory and should be rendered unconstitutional.
ASIEDU, JSC.
[1]. Introduction:
My lords, on the 11th November 2022, the Plaintiff in this matter filed a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court against the 1st and the 2nd defendants herein for reliefs in the nature of the following:
a. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 17(1) and (2) which guarantee equality before the law and prohibits 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 1st February 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 article 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional.
b. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 17(1) and (2), Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on 1st February 2016 which prohibits well-known personalities and professionals from advertising alcoholic products is inconsistent with and in contravention of article 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 amongst 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 1st February 2016 as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and as such a nullity.
d. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or servants or assigns under the pretext of acting under guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for advertisement of foods published by the 1st Defendant on 1st February 2016 from doing anything to prevent any well-known personality or professional from advertising alcoholic products.
On the same date, the Plaintiff filed a statement of case in support of his writ in accordance with the requirements of rule 46(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, CI.16. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, in accordance with rule 48 of CI.16, respectively, filed their statement of case in answer to the Plaintiff’s statement of case on the 14th February 2023 and the 7th March 2023. The parties, subsequently filed a joint memor