Adsense Skyscrapper

Ban Alcohol If It’s Bad – Rex Omar Tells FDA

Veteran highlife artist Rex Omar has openly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Food and Drugs Authority’s (FDA) ban on celebrities endorsing alcohol advertisements.

Speaking in an interview on 3FM, Rex Omar, believes the decision by the Supreme Court was “wrong.”

Rex Omar contended the ruling by the Supreme court and wondered why alcohol sales were permitted while celebrities are being banned from endorsing them.

“I think it’s wrong. I’m not a lawyer and as for Supreme Court rulings, I will not challenge them, but I completely disagree with them.

“Are we saying alcohol is bad? If alcohol is bad, ban it,” he said.

The Highlife musician criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, comparing it to drug advertisements. He questioned if those who promote drugs should be held accountable for drug misuse incidents.

By drawing this comparison, he challenged the logic behind banning celebrities from endorsing alcohol, suggesting a double standard in advertising regulations.

“If you are saying that celebrities promoting alcohol will have a negative impact on society. What about drugs? Don’t they advertise? So if somebody goes and abuses drugs, will you blame the person advertising it?” he said.

He suggested an alternative approach in which celebrities could endorse alcohol while cautioning that minors should not consume it.


The FDA in its guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published on February 1, 2016 stipulates that “No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising.”

The authority explained that the guideline was necessary to prevent minors from being addicted to alcohol due to the influence of celebrities.

The FDA further noted that the ban was in adherence with a policy by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and also part of efforts to protect children and young ones from being lured into alcoholism.

However, a citizen Mark Darlington filed a suit against the FDA’s directive praying the Apex court to hold as unconstitutional the directive as it violated the right against discrimination as guaranteed by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.

But the Supreme court in a 5-2 majority decision on Wednesday, June 19 dismissed the case and upheld the FDA’s directive.

The court held that the directive by FDA was not unreasonable and excessive, adding that it didn’t contravene the provision of the constitution.


Comments are closed.