Federal government agencies have condemned the incessant practice of celebrities being paid to endorse and promote companies’ products and services on their social media handles, only for the companies to fail to deliver the advertised goods or render the advertised services, despite receiving payment from customers.

Companies, in a bid to drive sales and patronage, often employ these celebrities as brand ambassadors to promote their products and services.

Some of these celebrities are seen consuming the products they promote to convince and attract their followers by demonstrating the credibility of the companies and their products and services.

However, some celebrities later distance themselves from the companies or products after realising that they are not delivering the promised services, despite having already persuaded some of their fans to patronise them.

Some of these government agencies told Peoples Gazette that such celebrities should ordinarily face the law for misrepresenting products or services to mislead the public into parting with their money, regardless of their intentions, whether good or bad, especially if such celebrities fall for it more than once.

According to the Supreme Court in Afegbai v. A.G Edo State & Anor. (2001) LPELR-193 (SC), the state of mind, knowledge or belief of the celebrity making the promotion is immaterial in determining whether there is a misrepresentation.

Also, going by Sections 61 and 62 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, a celebrity’s liability is not only to the public but also to the organisation they represent.

In the same vein, Section 320(1)(a) and (b) of the Penal Code criminalises the act of: (a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to a person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; (b) intentionally inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which they would not do or omit to do if they were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Celebrities such as David Adeleke, popularly known as Davido; Divine Ikubor, popularly called Rema; and popular actors Williams Uchemba and Kanayo O. Kanayo, among others, have endorsed and advertised a Ponzi scheme company, RackSterli, and products that have allegedly defrauded many people.

Sadly, these celebrities are hardly ever prosecuted, let alone summoned for questioning by relevant authorities, despite several viral video evidence capturing their endorsements of such companies, as well as other videos showing the celebrities apologising for promoting services that have swindled customers.

Spokesperson for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, Okor Odey, told The Gazette that although the practice is illegal, the facts of each case would determine whether the ICPC would get involved in the prosecution of such celebrities.

Mr Odey said, “I know there was once when Kanayo O. Kanayo had issued a disclaimer about one brand he represented, but I’m not sufficiently informed about those who have also done so for me to know if it requires ICPC’s intervention. I must know the facts of the matter to see where it concerns the ICPC and how it infringed on the provisions of our Act.

“But morally speaking, not based on the law of ICPC, I would want to expect that, for you to say you have found somebody culpable, there’s a clear indication that he is breaching the laws or some form of agreement. What are the agreements that these celebrities have with these firms?”

“Assuming you’re a celebrity, I manufactured something and called you to represent my product because I believe consumers will be persuaded to part with their money if your face and name are associated with it. You should be very wary of appending your name and face to anything you’re not sure of; you should do your own background check. If your name is associated with something that is bad once or twice, perception is everything.”

Mr Odey advised celebrities to ensure that they demand that companies include clauses in their agreements indemnifying them against any backlash before agreeing to become brand ambassadors.

“Do they do that or they just run after the money? Is it a case of greed or chasing clout? The entire system needs to be looked into. It’s not enough for me as a person to say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know, they misled me’. It’s not right; they should have public relations advisers and lawyers to advise them.

“They should also have clauses inserted, so that if I ask you to be my brand ambassador and I mislead you into representing my company, products or services, and sign a contract with me, for tarnishing your reputation, there should be heavy penalties attached to that agreement that the manufacturer must pay you, the celebrity, and other affected patronisers. It should be there before you even sign. That should serve as a deterrent.

“You cannot tell me that the first time I was misled, the second time, I was misled again, and the third time, I was misled again. Who is going to listen to that? We all should be mindful and watchful.”

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC)  stated that it regularly comes across such cases and ensures that such companies fulfil their obligations to subscribers, but victims have to lodge complaints before it takes up the matter.

The executive commissioner, operations, of the FCCPC, Louis Odion, said, “We deal with cases of that nature regularly. In many instances, the erring developers were made by the Commission to fulfil their obligations to subscribers, apart from paying statutory fines.

“Essentially, what is required is for a complaint to be duly submitted to us and we will follow up. But usually, the petitions we get only involve a developer and a subscriber or a group of subscribers.

“The issue of celebrity endorsement is an arrangement between the developer and celebrities engaged as marketers. But I can tell you that all the complaints we have received only involved the developer and a subscriber.”

He stated that the FCCPA (2018), which provides for the rights of consumers of goods and services in Nigeria, criminalises not only the production and sale of fake products but also deceptive marketing.

He, therefore, encouraged subscribers who had been ripped off in such a manner to get in touch with the FCCPC through its complaint portal, which operates in real time, as well as its state and zonal offices across the country.

Spokesperson for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Dele Oyewale, while stating that the agency does not take action based on sentiments and suspicion, urged such victims to formally lodge complaints with the EFCC rather than on social media before the commission commenced investigations.

Mr Oyewale said, “Our mandate is to tackle economic and financial crimes. If any of these celebrities commit an alleged financial crime, we expect that the public will report such allegations to us. There must be a report or allegation or petition that bothers on economic and financial crime, not public opinion, sentiments, without a corresponding petition. If a financial crime is committed and reported to us, we will take action.

“If a member of the public says that a financial injury has been done to me, I’ve lost this and that, and it is reported to us, we will investigate it and do the appropriate thing. It’s not enough for people to say that about celebrities. Has any report been made to the EFCC? Is there an allegation of financial crime concerning any of them? Suspicion is not enough; there must be facts that we can work with.”

The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) said its mandate relates only to food and drugs, but that, going by the Drugs and Related Products Advertisement Regulations 2021 and the Food Advertisement Regulations 2021, it is illegal to advertise food and drugs on social media without NAFDAC’s approval.

The NAFDAC deputy director, public relations, Christiana Obiazikwor, stated that many celebrities use social media to advertise fake products to people and defraud them, adding that some people had been arrested over such illegal advertisements. She added that some of the offenders did not have addresses that would enable the agency to track them.

Mrs Obiazikwo said, “In the online space, people are just taking advantage of it to promote products that are not even registered, and it’s becoming worrisome because some of these people promoting don’t even have addresses, so tracing them is a problem, but we are watching.

“We’ve been sensitising people to ensure that if they have a regulated product, they must register the advertisement of that regulated product with NAFDAC. Approval of that product registration does not give you the right to advertise it if you don’t have the advert approval.

“So, if you’re advertising a product and you don’t have that advert approval, it’s against the law. I’m using this opportunity to sensitise people because some of these people promoting may not even know. Some will show a NAFDAC number as if that is the certification for advertisement, which is not.

“If we get those people, we don’t spare them. We have cases in court. We’re begging the public to report to us if they see any of such acts. If we’re able to get them… these people, the companies and celebrities, some of them are faceless because of social media; you can’t even trace them, they don’t have offices.”

On whether any celebrity had been arrested for advertising products on social media without NAFDAC’s advert approval, she said, “I will not say yes or no. I will not have an immediate answer to this question, but whoever the person is, we don’t mind whoever.”