By: Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
The Amasaman High Court in Ghana has ignited a fierce international debate by slashing the 15-year prison sentence of Patricia Asiedua Asiamah, known as Nana Agradaa, to a mere 12 months. This dramatic reduction follows her conviction for defrauding by false pretences and charlatanic advertisement. While the court upheld the guilty verdict, the move to lighten her punishment has polarized the legal community and the Ghanaian public, raising fundamental questions about whether justice is a “sledgehammer” or a selective net.
How it Started: The Legal Path and Prosecution Claims
The case began with a televised broadcast in 2022. Nana Agradaa, a former fetish priestess who transitioned into a self-styled evangelist, promised to distribute GH¢300,000 to needy followers. Instead, she allegedly collected various sums from congregants under the guise of “Sika Gari,” a spiritual money-doubling scheme. The prosecution built its case on the violation of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, focusing on the predatory nature of the charlatanic advertisements. Defense attorneys, however, filed a robust 45-page appeal arguing the trial was wrongful in law. They alleged the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof onto Agradaa to “prove her innocence” and attacked her personality rather than the evidence.
The Hammer Falls: The First Ruling
In July 2025, an Accra Circuit Court handed down a heavy 15-year sentence with hard labour. The trial judge focused on the predatory nature of the crime and the abuse of religious trust. This ruling was initially seen as a landmark victory for those seeking to
curb the rise of charlatanic practices in Ghana. The court at the time felt a strong custodial sentence was necessary to deter other self-styled “men and women of God” from exploiting the public. However, the severity of the 15 years for a case involving a documented loss of GH¢1,000 sparked immediate legal scrutiny regarding its constitutionality and proportionality.
Why the Judge Reduced the Sentence
Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi of the Amasaman High Court described the original 15-year term as “unusually harsh and excessive.” He famously compared the punishment to “killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer.” Critically, the judge noted that the Circuit Court failed to account for the 32 days Agradaa spent in custody prior to judgment. He also pointed out that the trial court ignored inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case while fixating only on those of the defense. The High Court held that the trial judge focused on the “person” rather than the “crime.” The revised sentence includes a fine of GH¢2,400 (or an additional three months in default) and a mandatory refund of GH¢1,000 to the victims.
Outrage and Advocacy: Perspectives from Key Players
Legal scholars have reacted with visible alarm. Professor Kwaku Asare (Kwaku Azar) argued that the ruling replaces established law with “personal philosophy and metaphors.” He warned that the decision creates a “dangerous void” and risks making the justice system a laughingstock. “Justice is not about extremes. It is about balance,” Asare noted, while challenging the state to appeal. On the political front, Bongo MP Charles Bawaduah stated on February 7, 2026, “The Court has made a mockery of Ghana’s Criminal Justice system… This is basically saying that you can do anything wrong and get away with it.”
Public Pulse: Relieved and Jubilant
The social divide is best captured in the voices of Ghanaians who have followed the case for years. For those who view the original sentence as a personal vendetta against a woman of faith, the reduction feels like a divine intervention. Outside the courtroom, a crowd of supporters erupted in cheers, viewing the ruling as “justice tempered with mercy.”
“Nana Agradaa needs freedom. She hasn’t killed anyone. She is a mother and the people who gave her money did so willingly,” argued one passionate supporter. Her husband, Angel Asiamah, echoed this relief, declaring himself the “happiest man on earth” following the reduction.
The Critic: Skeptical and Demoralized
Conversely, many see the reduction as a sign that the law is a “spider’s web” that catches only the small and weak, while the influential fly through. This sentiment is widespread among market traders and those who have felt the sting of similar scams.
“The 15 years should have been a deterrent to all fraudsters parading as spiritual leaders. Now, every scammer will think they can buy their way out with a small fine,” said a market woman in Accra. Another online commenter, Ambushman, was more blunt: “From 15 years to 12 months? This is BS! She’s a scammer and a criminal.”
The Indifferent: Cynical and Unsurprised
A significant portion of the public has become desensitized to the “Agradaa drama,” viewing it as a recurring cycle of controversy that changes nothing about the country’s spiritual or legal landscape. To them, the sentence is just another headline in a long-running comedy.
“Ghanaians tolerate her too much. It is the greedy and lazy who fall for these tricks. Whether she stays in for one year or fifteen, another ‘evangelist’ will just take her place tomorrow,” remarked a local commuter.
Precedent and Policy: The Risk of Token Punishment
The fallout of this ruling extends beyond one individual’s perspective. By reducing the sentence to what critics call a “token punishment,” the High Court risks signaling to other bad actors that religious exploitation carries a manageable cost. If fraud is measured only by the immediate cedi value rather than the breach of communal trust, the judicial system may struggle to protect citizens from increasingly sophisticated spiritual scams that characterize the modern West African religious landscape.
Balancing Justice and Deterrence
The Nana Agradaa case sits at the intersection of legal proportionality and public deterrence. Legal experts argue that while 15 years may have been high for GH¢1,000, reducing it to one year for organized, faith-based fraud ignores the “prevalence of the offense” in the region. The core of the legal debate now rests on whether the “Arithmetic of Fraud”—judging a crime solely by the GH¢ Cedi amount stolen—is a valid judicial metric. The High Court’s decision highlights a fundamental tension: should a sentence reflect the specific monetary value, or the broader social harm caused by the breach of
trust? As the Office of the Attorney General faces calls to appeal, the case remains a crucial bellwether for the integrity of Ghana’s legal framework.
