By Grace Zigah
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice has dismissed a case filed by Ghanaian dancehall artiste Charles Nii Armah Mensah, popularly known as Shatta Wale, who alleged that the Republic of Ghana and its Gaming Commission discriminated against him by blocking a potential endorsement deal.
In a ruling delivered on May 9, 2025, the regional court said the plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence that his rights were violated or that he was treated differently from others in similar circumstances.
The three-member panel, consisting of Justices Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding), Sengu Mohamed Koroma, and Dupe Atoki (Judge Rapporteur), unanimously held that the application lacked merit and dismissed the case in its entirety.
Background
Shatta Wale had approached the ECOWAS Court in 2023, claiming that his right to equality and non-discrimination under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights had been breached.
According to him, a gaming company in Ghana withdrew from an endorsement arrangement with him, citing a policy enforced by the Gaming Commission.
At the heart of the dispute was Guideline VII of the Ghana Gaming Commission’s advertising policy, which bars gaming companies from using celebrities in advertisements that could “entice the general public to gamble.”
Shatta Wale argued that this regulation unfairly targeted public figures like himself and hindered his ability to earn legitimate income from endorsement deals.
The artist, whose profile includes multiple international music awards and brand affiliations, insisted that the regulation not only cost him a business opportunity but also amounted to unjustified discrimination based solely on his celebrity status.
Ghana’s Response and Court’s Finding
In response, the State of Ghana rejected the claims, asserting that the Gaming Commission acted within the law and had not targeted the musician specifically.
The commission further questioned the ECOWAS Court’s jurisdiction to invalidate national legislation, maintaining that the policy applied uniformly and had not been used selectively.
Ghana also challenged the evidence brought forward by Shatta Wale, urging the court to demand proof that other celebrities were allowed to engage in similar deals under the same legal framework.
In its decision, the Court agreed with Ghana’s position, noting that the applicant had failed to:
Identify or name the gaming company at the center of the failed endorsement;
Provide any written or oral communication with the said company;
Offer evidence that other Ghanaian celebrities had been granted similar deals under the same guideline;
Prove that the government directed the gaming company to terminate the deal.
Moreover, the Court pointed out that granting relief without identifying the third party (the gaming company) central to the case would violate procedural rules.
Despite acknowledging its jurisdiction to hear the matter, the Court found no merit in the discrimination claims and thus dismissed the case.
For Shatta Wale, who has used his platform to advocate for more recognition of artists’ rights and economic opportunities, the judgment may mark a legal setback.
However, it brings closure to a case that raised significant public interest over the intersection between celebrity influence and regulatory control in Ghana’s growing entertainment and gaming industries.
