The ECOWAS Court has thrown out a case filed by Ghanaian musician Shatta Wale, who claimed he was treated unfairly by the government of Ghana and the Gaming Commission.

0

According to the court, Shatta Wale did not provide enough evidence to show he was treated differently from others. He also failed to show any proof that he had contacted the gaming company involved or even mention the name of the company at the center of the issue.

1

Because of these gaps in his case, the court ruled against him.

2

Background

3

Shatta Wale alleged that his right to non-discrimination was violated when he was prevented from securing an endorsement deal with a gaming company in Ghana.

4

The applicant claimed that his established social status and professional achievements had earned him recognition and endorsement opportunities for various products and services within and outside Ghana.

5

However, he alleged that a potential endorsement deal was terminated because of Guideline VII of Ghana's Advertising Guidelines, which prohibits gaming "operators from using celebrities in their advertisements to entice the general public to gamble."

6

Mr. Mensah contended that this restriction based on his celebrity status constituted discrimination and violated his rights guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other international legal instruments.

7

The respondent, the Republic of Ghana, denied the applicant's claims and challenged the Court's competence to determine a case seeking to repeal or revoke national legislation.

8

Ghana requested that the applicant (Shatta Wale) provide evidence of other celebrities engaged in similar advertisements who received different treatment.

9

The respondent maintained that no celebrities of the applicant's status were permitted to engage in such advertisements in Ghana, and examples cited by the applicant involved celebrities engaged by other countries with different legal frameworks.

10

In its judgment, the Court observed that: 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.

11

The applicant did not present credible evidence demonstrating different treatment of other celebrities engaged in similar advertisements that would amount to discrimination.

12

The Court was being asked to grant relief with implications for a critical but unidentified third party (the gaming company), which contradicts the rules of admissibility of the Court.

13

The Court declared it has jurisdiction over the application and its admissibility and dismissed the case in its entirety as lacking merit.

14

The judgment was rendered by a panel comprising Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves, Presiding Judge, Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma, Member and Justice Dupe Atoki, Member and Judge Rapporteur.

15