Why the Amasaman High Court Reduced Agradaa’s 15-Year Prison Sentence to 12 Months
By Emmanuel Ebo Hawkson
Feb 5, 2026 | 3-minute read (expanded analysis)
The High Court in Amasaman has reduced the 15-year prison sentence imposed on self-styled traditional priestess turned evangelist, Patricia Asiedu Asiamah, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, describing the original punishment as “harsh and excessive” in the circumstances of the case.
The decision, delivered on Thursday, February 5, 2026, by Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi, followed an appeal filed by Agradaa challenging both her conviction and the severity of the sentence handed down by the Accra Circuit Court in July 2025.
While the High Court upheld the conviction for defrauding by false pretence, it found that the punishment imposed by the trial court did not reflect a fair and proportionate assessment of the offence, the evidence, and established sentencing principles.
Background of the Case
Nana Agradaa was convicted in July 2025 on two counts of defrauding by false pretence after a Circuit Court found that she had fraudulently taken money from members of the public during a televised church service in 2022.
During the broadcast, Agradaa announced that she intended to distribute GH¢300,000 to needy congregants as part of what she described as a charitable or spiritual exercise. However, instead of giving out money, she received various sums from attendees who believed they were participating in the promised distribution.
The prosecution established that two complainants paid GH¢500 each, bringing the total amount involved in the specific charges to GH¢1,000. Despite the relatively small sum, the trial court sentenced Agradaa to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count, ordering that the sentences run concurrently.
Grounds of Appeal
Agradaa appealed the decision, arguing among other things that:
-
The sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the offence
-
The trial court failed to properly consider the circumstances of the case
-
The court was unduly influenced by her public personality rather than the evidence
-
Inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case were ignored
Her legal team contended that although the offence was serious, the punishment far exceeded what was reasonable under Ghanaian sentencing practice for the amounts involved and the number of complainants.
High Court’s Reasoning
In a carefully reasoned judgment, Justice Oppong-Twumasi agreed that the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court could not be justified based on the facts and evidence before it.
“Considering all the circumstances of the case together, I came to the irresistible conclusion that the sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed on the Appellant was indeed unusually harsh and excessive,” the judge held.
The court stressed that sentencing must be proportionate, fair, and guided by objective legal principles, not public sentiment or the notoriety of the accused.
Focus on Personality Over Facts
One of the most significant criticisms raised by the High Court was that the trial judge appeared to have focused more on who Agradaa was, rather than what the evidence proved.
According to the High Court, the Circuit Court failed to fairly balance the gravity of the offence with its actual impact.
“The trial judge did not fairly consider the enormity of the crime involved, but she became fixated only on the person involved in imposing the sentence on the Appellant,” the court stated.
Justice Oppong-Twumasi noted that while Agradaa’s public profile and influence may have been relevant in assessing moral blameworthiness, they should not have eclipsed the fundamental requirement of proportional sentencing.
Amount Involved and Number of Victims
The High Court clarified that its decision should not be misunderstood as trivialising the offence or the losses suffered by the victims.
The court acknowledged that fraud is a serious crime regardless of the amount involved. However, it emphasized that sentencing must still be grounded in factual realities.
“The court is not by any stretch of imagination to be understood to be saying that because there were only two victims or because the amount involved was only GH¢1,000, the Appellant did not commit any crime,” the judge explained.
At the same time, the court held that the limited number of complainants and the specific sums involved were relevant considerations that should have moderated the sentence imposed.
Failure to Consider Inconsistencies
Another key factor that influenced the High Court’s decision was what it described as unequal treatment of evidence by the trial court.
Justice Oppong-Twumasi pointed out that while the Circuit Court scrutinised and criticised inconsistencies in Agradaa’s testimony, it failed to apply the same level of scrutiny to the prosecution’s case.
“There were indeed some inconsistencies in the evidence of both sides, but strangely, in her judgment, the Honourable trial judge only commented on the inconsistencies in the evidence of the Appellant but did not even in passing, comment on the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case,” the court observed.
This selective evaluation of evidence, the High Court said, amounted to unfair treatment and further weakened the justification for such a severe sentence.
Revised Sentence
After reviewing all the circumstances, the High Court substituted the 15-year sentence with a 12-month term of imprisonment.
The court ordered that the reduced sentence take effect from July 3, 2025, the date of Agradaa’s original conviction by the Circuit Court.
In addition to the custodial sentence, the court imposed a fine of GH¢2,400, with a default sentence of three months’ imprisonment should she fail to pay.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
The ruling has sparked renewed discussion within legal circles about sentencing standards in high-profile criminal cases, particularly where public figures are involved.
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces the principle that punishment must fit the crime, regardless of public outrage or the identity of the offender. It also underscores the appellate courts’ role in correcting sentences that deviate from established norms.
Conclusion
While Nana Agradaa remains convicted of defrauding by false pretence, the Amasaman High Court’s decision sends a clear message that sentencing must be guided by law, evidence, and proportionality—not emotion or public perception.
By reducing the sentence, the court sought to balance accountability with fairness, reaffirming that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
