Over a year after winning a landmark copyright case against the Confederation of African Football (CAF), Ghanaian music producer Kobby Spiky Nkrumah is still waiting to be paid the $250,000 in damages awarded by a High Court in Accra, despite CAF’s appeal being dismissed.
The judgment, delivered on July 17, 2024, recognized that Spiky’s original music track, Okomfo Anokye, was used by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) in promotional materials for the 2018 CAF Awards without his consent, a clear case of copyright infringement.
The court awarded him $250,000 in damages, a decision based on the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690), which provides that unauthorized use of copyrighted material can result in financial penalties. It was not just a win for Spiky – it was a victory for creative professionals across the continent who often feel powerless when their work is used without permission or recognition.
But more than a year later, and even after CAF’s appeal was dismissed, the damages remain unpaid.
Upholding the Law
CAF, through its legal team, argued for a stay of execution, hoping to delay enforcement of the judgment pending further appeal. Their arguments hinged on the interpretation of “commercial use” and whether using copyrighted music to promote an event amounted to commercialization. They even likened the situation to a judicial association (JUSAG) announcing its celebration on TV with background music, a comparison that, while legal in nature, many found hard to equate with the scale and commercial weight of the CAF Awards.
The court, however, saw through the distinction. Justice Emmanuel Logoh, after hearing arguments from both parties, declined the request for a stay, stating plainly: “I have heard the legal submissions by both lawyers and also had regard to the depositions contained in the affidavit filed by the parties. Application accordingly refused.”
Spiky’s legal counsel, Onyinye-Chukwu Marymagdalene Okeyea, defended the ruling, relying on multiple sections of Ghana’s copyright law to illustrate that CAF’s actions were indeed infringing. She pointed out that even CAF had introduced its internal statutes into evidence and that the court was well within its rights to consider them.
A Matter of Principle
This is no longer just a legal matter. It is a test of how seriously we take the rights of creators, especially on a continent where artists and producers often struggle to protect their intellectual property. Spiky is not a corporation with deep pockets. He is an individual who believed in the legal system, followed due process, and won. What remains is the principle of honoring that judgment.
There has been no indication that CAF is unwilling to fulfill its obligation, but the delays send a disheartening message to the many young creatives who are watching closely: that even when you win in court, justice can still be delayed.
A Call for Closure
This isn’t about bitterness or blame. It is about closure. Spiky has not asked for more than what the law entitles him to. He followed the rules, made his case, and won fairly. The judicial process has spoken not once, but twice, with both the original ruling and the dismissal of the stay of execution application affirming his rights.
What remains is a simple act of closure and accountability: for CAF to comply with the court’s decision and pay the damages awarded.
This case has become a symbol, a symbol of hope, of perseverance, and of what’s possible when creatives stand up for their rights. But symbols require action to carry meaning. It is time to close this chapter the right way.
Justice delayed should not be justice denied.
