The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has dismissed a high-profile discrimination lawsuit filed by celebrated Ghanaian dancehall artist, Charles Nii Armah Mensah, popularly known as Shatta Wale, against the Republic of Ghana and the country’s Gaming Commission.
In a judgment delivered by a three-member panel, the regional court ruled that Shatta Wale failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims that he was discriminated against after allegedly losing a potential endorsement deal due to existing advertising restrictions in Ghana’s gaming industry.
Shatta Wale’s Claims
Shatta Wale brought the case before the ECOWAS Court, alleging that his right to non-discrimination was violated when he was barred from participating in a proposed endorsement arrangement with a gaming company in Ghana. The multi-award-winning musician claimed that his celebrity status and track record in the entertainment industry had earned him numerous endorsement opportunities over the years, both locally and internationally.
According to his submission, the potential endorsement deal was abruptly halted due to Ghana’s Advertising Guidelines—specifically Guideline VII—which restricts gaming companies from using celebrities in their promotional campaigns to prevent glamorizing gambling to the public.
He argued that this prohibition unfairly targeted him based on his celebrity status, thereby constituting discrimination and infringing upon his fundamental human rights as enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, along with other applicable international legal instruments.
Ghana’s Defense
In response, the Republic of Ghana refuted the allegations, arguing that the court lacked the authority to repeal national legislation. The state maintained that the advertising guideline in question applies uniformly to all public figures, irrespective of their fame or influence.
Ghana further challenged Shatta Wale to present concrete examples of other Ghanaian celebrities who had been allowed to endorse gaming products in similar circumstances. They pointed out that any examples the musician cited involved celebrities from other countries operating under different legal frameworks, not Ghanaian entertainers subject to local regulations.
The state also emphasized that no discriminatory directive was ever issued specifically targeting Shatta Wale and that there was no official documentation showing the Gaming Commission intervened to block the endorsement deal.
The Court’s Findings
In its judgment, the ECOWAS Court determined that Shatta Wale’s case lacked both merit and sufficient proof. The court held that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence that he was treated differently from other celebrities or that any discriminatory conduct occurred.
“The Applicant failed to provide proof of any correspondence or oral evidence of interaction with the unidentified gaming company, or of any order from the Respondent to the gaming company to discontinue discussions with the Applicant,” the panel stated.
Additionally, the court noted that no substantial evidence was provided to demonstrate that other celebrities had been allowed to engage in similar activities under the same legal framework, which would be necessary to establish discriminatory treatment.
The judges also emphasized that the applicant had not disclosed the identity of the gaming company involved in the purported deal, thereby making it impossible for the court to assess the full context or validate the claims. They ruled that granting relief under such circumstances would unfairly impact a critical, unnamed third party, in violation of the court’s admissibility requirements.
Verdict and Implications
Ultimately, the ECOWAS Court upheld its jurisdiction to hear the matter but dismissed Shatta Wale’s application in its entirety for lacking merit.
The judgment was delivered by a panel comprising Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge), Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Member), and Justice Dupe Atoki (Member and Judge Rapporteur).
Legal experts suggest the ruling reinforces the importance of providing detailed, credible evidence in international human rights litigation, especially when challenging national laws. It also underscores the principle that regulatory policies—particularly those related to public health and consumer protection—can be lawfully applied even to prominent public figures, provided they are implemented consistently and without bias.
Broader Reactions
While Shatta Wale has yet to publicly respond to the ruling, the case has generated considerable public interest, especially within Ghana’s entertainment and legal communities. Some industry observers say the case highlights the tensions between celebrity influence and regulatory restrictions, particularly in sectors like gambling, where concerns about public morality and addiction prevention are high.
Others argue that the ruling may deter future legal challenges against similar laws unless plaintiffs can back their claims with solid documentation and clear evidence of differential treatment.
In the meantime, Ghana’s Gaming Commission and other regulatory bodies are expected to maintain their stance on advertising policies, continuing to bar celebrity endorsements in the gaming industry in line with national guidelines.
Whether or not Shatta Wale will consider appealing the ECOWAS Court’s decision or pursuing other legal avenues remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the ruling has set a precedent in how celebrity status is weighed against national policy within the West African legal framework.
