Full reasoning of the Amasaman High Court in slashing Agradaa's sentence

A High Court in Amasaman has reduced the prison sentence of evangelist Patricia Asieduaa, widely known as Nana Agradaa, from 15 years to 12 calendar months. The court, however, upheld her conviction by the Accra Circuit Court.

In the same judgment, the court issued a clear warning to pastors and prophets who publicly “reveal” outcomes of cases that are still pending before the courts.

Background to the case

The matter started at the Circuit Court in Accra. On 5 July 2025, Ms Asieduaa was convicted of charlatanic advertisement and two counts of defrauding by false pretences.

On the charlatanic advertisement charge, the Circuit Court imposed a fine of 25 penalty units, with 30 days’ imprisonment in default. 

On the two fraud counts, the court sentenced her to 15 years’ imprisonment in hard labour. The sentences were to run concurrently, meaning she faced a total of 15 years.

Within two days, she filed an appeal against both the conviction and the sentence.

Grounds of appeal

Her lawyers argued that the decision was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and that the trial was wrong in law. They said the Circuit Court effectively required her to prove her innocence, contrary to Article 19(2) of the 1992 Constitution. They also alleged bias, claiming the trial judge showed personal animosity and intimidated defence counsel in open court. Finally, they challenged the sentence as harsh and excessive.

Decision on her conviction

Before addressing the substance, the High Court first dealt with problems in the appeal record. When the Record of Appeal arrived, the judge found it incomplete, with missing pages, and returned it to be corrected. 

After the record was updated, the court directed the parties to file written submissions, set the matter down for mention on 21 January 2026, and fixed 5 February 2026 for judgment.

On the complaint that Ms Asieduaa was forced to “prove her innocence”, the High Court rejected the argument. 

The court said the record showed the Circuit Court only called on her to open her defence after finding a prima facie case. On that basis, the High Court described the constitutional breach argument as “totally unfounded” on the face of the record.

On the allegation of bias and intimidation, the High Court said such claims must be tied to specific parts of the record. The judge said he could not find evidence supporting the allegations and stressed that bias cannot be established by “mere speculations”.

In the end, the High Court held that the prosecution proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal against conviction.

Reduction of the sentence

The High Court, however, took a different view on punishment.

The judge noted that the relevant fraud provision does not set a minimum sentence. While deterrence is an important objective, the court said discretion must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily.

In setting aside the 15-year term, the High Court pointed to practical factors, including:

only two victims testified,

the amount involved was GH¢1,000,

restitution was being ordered, and

the Circuit Court failed or refused to credit 32 days Ms Asieduaa had already spent in custody.

The High Court maintained the fine of 25 penalty units on the first count and set a default sentence of three months’ imprisonment in hard labour.

On the two fraud counts, the court imposed 12 calendar months’ imprisonment in hard labour. It also added a fine of 200 penalty units on the fraud counts, with one year in default.

All sentences are to run concurrently and take retrospective effect from 5 July 2025.

The court further ordered Ms Asieduaa to refund the complainants. It warned that if she does not repay by 24 February 2026, the complainants may pursue civil recovery.

Warning to pastors and prophets

In a notable addendum, the judge referenced reports that during the Christmas period, especially on 31 December 2025, some pastors issued “revelations” about the outcome while the case was still pending.

He said the court’s decision was based on law and evidence, not prophecy. He cautioned religious figures to “hasten slowly” when commenting on matters that are sub judice, warning that predicting court outcomes is unfair to the parties and undermines the justice process. The judge urged that justice delivery be left to “laid down and well-proven procedures” rather than religious dictates.