Entertainment
Two Years After Winning Copyright Case, Spiky Says CAF Has Yet to Pay Court-Ordered US$250,000 Compensation
Ghanaian music producer Kwabena Ofei-Kwadey Nkrumah, popularly known as Spiky, has revealed that he is yet to receive the US$250,000 compensation awarded to him by the Commercial Court following his successful copyright infringement lawsuit against the Confederation of African Football (CAF), nearly two years after securing judgment.
In a lengthy statement posted on his Facebook page on July 16, 2026, Spiky reflected on the difficult journey of enforcing the court’s decision, saying that although he won the legal battle, obtaining the compensation has proven to be a much greater challenge.
“Tomorrow marks exactly two years since I got judgment, and till now, no payment,” he wrote.
Multiple Court Appearances But No Payment
According to the producer, despite returning to court on several occasions and filing multiple legal applications, the judgment remains unenforced.
He explained that various legal processes have continued since the ruling, with additional court decisions and mounting legal fees, yet the compensation has still not been paid.
“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.
Spiky admitted that the prolonged legal process has taken a heavy financial and emotional toll on him.
He disclosed that some people who initially encouraged him to pursue the case have since advised him to let it go, arguing that simply 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.
However, he believes that winning a lawsuit and actually receiving the compensation awarded are two completely different battles.
“Winning a case and receiving what you won are two completely different battles,” he noted.
Spiky explained that many people mistakenly believe a court judgment automatically leads to payment.
He said successful litigants are often forced to locate a debtor’s assets, identify bank accounts that can be garnished and repeatedly return to court while paying additional legal fees simply to enforce an existing judgment.
To illustrate his experience, he compared the process to winning a race but being denied the prize.
“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 discourages many ordinary people from seeking justice through the courts.
The producer said the burden extends well beyond lawyers’ fees.
He listed filing costs, transportation expenses, execution costs, lost working hours and the psychological strain of repeatedly reliving the legal dispute every time enforcement proceedings begin.
He lamented that the money spent pursuing enforcement could have significantly improved his personal life.
“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.”
Spiky also criticised what he described as the ability of powerful institutions to prolong legal proceedings through additional applications, appeals and procedural challenges.
He argued that such tactics often exhaust individuals with fewer financial resources, particularly where there are no easily identifiable local assets that can be attached to satisfy a court judgment.
According to him, a judgment debtor may know they have lost the case yet still force the successful party to spend years pursuing payment.
“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.”
Despite his frustrations, Spiky stressed that his criticism is not directed at the courts themselves.
He maintained that the courts remain one of the few institutions where ordinary citizens can challenge powerful organisations and have their cases fairly examined.
“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 questioned the practical meaning of justice when successful litigants must spend years and additional money trying to enforce judgments already delivered in their favour.
“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 and remains committed to pursuing enforcement of the judgment.
Background
The legal dispute dates back to July 17, 2024, when Commercial Court 7 in Accra ruled in favour of Spiky in his copyright infringement lawsuit against the Confederation of African Football (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 first obtaining his permission.
The court awarded Spiky US$250,000 in damages and an additional GH¢40,000 in legal costs.
Nearly two years after the landmark judgment, Spiky says the compensation remains unpaid, with his legal efforts now focused solely on enforcing the court’s ruling rather than proving liability.