|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Ghanaian music producer Kwabena Ofei-Kwadey Nkrumah, popularly known as Spiky, has disclosed that he is yet to receive the $250,000 awarded to him by the Commercial Court in his copyright infringement case against the Confederation of African Football (CAF), two years after securing judgment.
In a lengthy statement shared on his Facebook page on July 16, 2026, the producer reflected on the challenges he has faced in trying to enforce the court’s decision, stating that although he won the legal battle, the fight to obtain the compensation has proven even more difficult.
“Tomorrow marks exactly two years since I got judgment, and till now, no payment,” he wrote.
According to Spiky, despite returning to court on several occasions and filing multiple legal applications, the judgment has still not been executed.
“We have gone back to court multiple times since then. Applications have been filed, decisions have been made, legal fees have continued to pile up, but still, here we stand. No execution,” he stated.
The producer admitted that the prolonged legal process has taken a financial and emotional toll on him. He disclosed that some of those who initially encouraged him to pursue the case have since advised him to move on, arguing that winning the judgment should be enough vindication.
“A lot of people close to me have suggested that I give up and let it go. Some say I have already proven my point. Some say the judgment alone should be enough vindication,” he said.
Spiky explained that court cases often become more difficult after judgment is delivered, likening the experience to completing only the first half of a marathon.
“Winning a case and receiving what you won are two completely different battles,” he wrote.
He noted that after obtaining judgment, a successful litigant must still locate assets, identify bank accounts that can be garnisheed, and, in some instances, return to court repeatedly while incurring additional legal costs just to enforce an existing ruling.
“It feels like running a race, crossing the finish line first and then being told that the medal is locked in another building, and it is now your responsibility to find the building, locate the person holding the keys and pay for the door to be opened,” he remarked.
According to him, this reality discourages many people from seeking justice through the courts. He argued that the burden extends beyond lawyers’ fees to include filing costs, transportation expenses, execution costs, lost working hours, and the psychological strain of reliving the dispute each time enforcement proceedings begin.
“The money I have spent so far… it could have gone into fixing my house, which I am now having to demolish and rebuild. It could have solved real and immediate problems in my life. Instead, it has gone into chasing something a court has already said I am entitled to,” he lamented.
Spiky also criticised what he described as the ability of powerful institutions to prolong legal proceedings through additional applications, appeals and procedural challenges. He said such tactics often wear down individuals with fewer resources, especially where there are no readily identifiable local assets that can be attached to satisfy a judgment debt.
“The judgment debtor knows you have won, but also knows that you may still have to chase them across accounts, companies, jurisdictions and legal technicalities before the judgment becomes anything more than words on paper,” he stated.
The producer maintained that he still believes in the judicial system and emphasised that his concern lies with the enforcement of judgments rather than the courts themselves.
“The courts remain necessary. They remain one of the few places where an individual can confront a powerful institution and have the merits of the matter examined. My concern is not that the legal system has no value. My concern is what happens after the court has spoken,” he wrote.
Questioning the practical meaning of justice where judgments remain unenforced, he asked, “What does a judgment truly mean if the successful party must spend several more years and even more money trying to turn it into reality?”
Nevertheless, Spiky said he has no intention of abandoning the case.
Background
On July 17, 2014, Commercial Court 7 in Accra ruled in favour of Spiky in his copyright infringement suit against CAF. Presiding judge Justice Emmanuel Loddoh found that CAF had infringed the producer’s copyright by using the instrumental beat of his song, “Okomfo Anokye,” in promotional materials for the 2018 CAF Awards without obtaining his permission.
The court awarded Spiky damages equivalent to US$250,000 as well as GH¢40,000 in legal costs. Nearly two years after that landmark ruling, the producer says the compensation remains unpaid, with ongoing legal efforts focused on enforcing the judgment rather than determining liability.
