April 06, 2026
11 11 11 AM
BAUCHI PDP SETS UP EXIT COMMITTEE AMID DEFECTION TALKS
POLICE NAB SUSPECTED ROBBER, RECOVER GUNS IN IMO
CLASHES KILL 11, DESTROY HOMES IN NASARAWA
COURT ADJOURNS EL-RUFAI BAIL HEARING, BARS JOURNALISTS
SENATE ORDERS PROBE INTO PLATEAU KILLINGS
TINUBU SEEKS ₦9TRN INCREASE TO 2026 BUDGET
TINUBU CONDEMNS KILLINGS, ORDERS SECURITY CRACKDOWN
UK, US, FRANCE APPROVE NIGERIA’S AMBASSADORS
NORTHERN GOVS BACK TINUBU, PUSH SECURITY REFORMS
NCC ORDERS TELCOS TO COMPENSATE USERS FOR POOR NETWORK

ECOWAS COURT DELIVERS JUDGMENT IN CASE OF CHARLES NII ARMAH MENSAH V. REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND GAMING COMMISSION 

Share

ECOWAS COURT DELIVERS JUDGMENT IN CASE OF CHARLES NII ARMAH MENSAH V. REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND GAMING COMMISSION                                                                                              09-05-25

By Sadiq Aminu                                                    The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has today delivered judgment in Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/25/24, Charles Nii Armah Mensah v. Republic of Ghana and Gaming Commission, dismissing the discrimination claim brought by Ghanaian musician Charles Nii Armah Mensah, popularly known as Shatta Wale.

The Court ruled against the Applicant, citing his failure to provide sufficient evidence of differential treatment, lack of proof regarding correspondence with the gaming company involved, and failure to disclose the identity of the said company.

Mr. Mensah had alleged that he was denied an endorsement deal by a gaming company in Ghana due to Guideline VII of Ghana’s Advertising Guidelines, which prohibits gaming operators from using celebrities in advertisements.

He claimed the restriction violated his right to non-discrimination under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The Republic of Ghana denied the allegations and argued that no celebrities are permitted to endorse gaming products under Ghanaian law.

The Respondent challenged the Applicant to present evidence of celebrities who had been treated differently under similar circumstances.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Applicant failed to prove there was any correspondence with the gaming company, failed to show any directive from the government, and did not identify the gaming company, which is a necessary party.

The Court also noted that the Applicant did not present credible evidence of different treatment of other celebrities.

The Court declared that it had jurisdiction over the matter and found the application admissible but dismissed the case in its entirety for lacking merit.

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Home
Magazines
Our Channel
About Us
Contact Us
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x