The Amasaman High Court has slashed the 15-year prison sentence handed to self-styled evangelist Patricia Asiedu Asiamah, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, after concluding that the punishment imposed by the Accra Circuit Court was unusually harsh, excessive, and improperly reasoned.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, February 5, 2026, Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi upheld Agradaa’s appeal and substituted the sentence with 12 months’ imprisonment, effective from July 3, 2025 the date of her conviction along with a GH¢2,400 fine, or an additional three months in default.

1. Sentence Disproportionate to the Crime

The High Court found that the severity of the sentence did not match the gravity of the offence.

Although Agradaa was convicted on two counts of defrauding by false pretence, the evidence on record showed that:

• There were only two complainants
• Each complainant lost GH¢500
• The total proven financial loss was GH¢1,000

While the court stressed that fraud is still a serious crime regardless of the amount involved, it held that a 15-year jail term was grossly disproportionate under the circumstances.

2. Trial Court Focused on Agradaa’s Personality, Not the Crime

Justice Oppong-Twumasi criticised the Circuit Court for being fixated on Agradaa as a public figure, rather than objectively assessing the offence itself.

“The trial judge did not fairly consider the enormity of the crime involved, but became fixated only on the person involved,” the High Court ruled.

In effect, the appellate court found that Agradaa’s controversial public image appeared to have influenced the punishment more than the legal facts.

3. Failure to Consider Inconsistencies in the Prosecution’s Case

The High Court also held that the trial judge treated Agradaa unfairly by selectively analysing evidence.

According to the ruling:

• Both the prosecution and defence had inconsistencies in their evidence
• The Circuit Court judge only criticised inconsistencies in Agradaa’s testimony
• The court failed to examine or comment on contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence

This one-sided evaluation, the High Court said, undermined the fairness of the sentencing process.

4. Punishment Fell Outside Reasonable Sentencing Principles

Justice Oppong-Twumasi concluded that, taking all factors together the amount involved, the number of victims, and the conduct of the trial the sentence went beyond what sentencing principles allow.

“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 stated.

Final Outcome

• 15-year sentence → Reduced to 12 months
• Sentence backdated to July 3, 2025
• GH¢2,400 fine imposed
• 3 extra months if the fine is not paid

Why This Ruling Matters

The judgment reinforces an important legal principle:
Punishment must be proportionate, objective, and free from personal bias, even where the accused is controversial or unpopular.

The High Court made it clear that courts must sentence based on evidence and law — not public sentiment or personality.