The controversial performer, born Charles Nii Armah Mensah<\/strong>, took his fight to West Africa’s highest regional Court, headquartered in Abuja, Nigeria. ECOWAS Community Court is the judicial arm of the Economic Community of West African States and hears cases involving human rights violations across its 15 member states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While the court confirmed it had the jurisdiction to hear the case and accepted it as admissible, it ultimately ruled against the musician.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the Pulse publication, Shatta Wale submitted that Ghana’s strict advertising rules unfairly blocked a lucrative endorsement deal for him with a local betting company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the heart of the case was Guideline VII of Ghana’s Advertising Guidelines<\/strong>, which bans celebrities from featuring in gambling advertisements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The musician said the regulation breached his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights<\/strong>, alleging discrimination and undue interference by Ghanaian authorities that cost him the major deal. But the court wasn’t convinced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its ruling, the three-judge panel, led by Presiding Justice Ricardo Cl\u00e1udio Monteiro Gon\u00e7alves, with Justices Sengu Mohamed Koroma and Dupe Atoki, said the case lacked merit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found that Shatta Wale failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of discrimination and rights violations, adding that he neither named the betting company allegedly involved nor provided proof of negotiations or state interference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, the court said he didn’t cite any comparable cases where other celebrities were treated differently, weakening his claim of being unfairly singled out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adding another blow to his case, the judges expressed concern over the anonymity of the betting company involved, stating that granting relief without identifying this third party would breach the court’s procedural rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Shatta Wale, the ruling marks the end of a bold legal battle, one that failed to beat the house.<\/p>\n\n\nCelebrity argued his rights were breached<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lack of info on betting company<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/05\/Gambling-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n