ECOWAS court dismisses Shatta Wale's suit against Ghana, Gaming Commission

The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has dismissed a lawsuit filed by popular Ghanaian musician Charles Nii Armah Mensah, widely known as Shatta Wale, over alleged discrimination by the Republic of Ghana and its Gaming Commission.

In its ruling, the court found that Shatta Wale failed to substantiate his claim that he was treated unfairly when an endorsement deal with a gaming company fell through. The judges noted that he did not identify the gaming company involved or provide any evidence of communication with the firm or proof that Ghanaian authorities intervened to block the deal.

The Claim

Shatta Wale contended that a prospective brand partnership was canceled due to a provision in Ghana's advertising guidelines, which bars gaming companies from featuring celebrities in their promotions as a way of attracting the public to gambling. He argued that this amounted to discriminatory treatment based on his public profile and contravened his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international agreements.

Ghana's Defense

The Government of Ghana denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the guidelines applied equally to all public figures, regardless of their fame or profession. Ghana further challenged the Court’s authority to overturn national laws and demanded that the artist show evidence of other celebrities in Ghana who had been allowed to engage in similar advertisements, which he could not do.

Court’s Findings

The Court emphasized that the artist did not demonstrate that he had entered into any formal relationship with the unnamed gaming company or that the state had issued directives against such a deal. Furthermore, he did not provide concrete examples of celebrities within Ghana who received preferential treatment under the same law.

Since the claim relied heavily on the existence and actions of a third party—the gaming company—which was neither named nor represented, the Court concluded that the case lacked the necessary merit for consideration.

The final judgment, delivered by a three-member panel including Justices Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves, Sengu Mohamed Koroma, and Dupe Atoki, upheld the Court’s jurisdiction but dismissed the case entirely.