Law expert explains why court reduced Agradaa's sentence from 15 years to 1 year
Televangelist Patricia Asiedua, popularly known as Agradaa, would be a free woman in a few months.
This follows the Amasaman High Court ruling on the appeal filed by her lawyers against her 15-year jail sentence.
Source: TikTok
Agradaa was sentenced to a 15-year jail term at an Accra Circuit Court for charlatanic advertisement and defrauding by false pretences on July 3, 2025.
She was accused of defrauding her congregants of varying sums of money after advertising her money-doubling abilities.
The prosecution's case centred on Agradaa's activities on Today's TV and various social media platforms, where she allegedly advertised a money-doubling scheme.
The controversial figure had publicly invited members of the public to attend an all-night service at her church, promising to double their money through her purported spiritual powers.
Source: Instagram
More than 1,000 people attended the all-night service, with attendees handing over substantial sums of money to Agradaa.
However, she failed to fulfil her promise of doubling the money, leaving numerous victims financially compromised.
The televangelist appealed her 15-year sentence, and she appeared at the Amasaman Circuit Court for hearings with her face covered.
In her appeal documents, Agradaa claimed the trial process was unfair, the evidence did not support the judge's verdict, and the jail term was excessive.
Agradaa's sentence reduced after appeal
Following her appearance at the court on Thursday, February 5, 2026, Agradaa's 15-year sentence was reduced to one year.
She was also fined 200 penalty units (GH₵2,400) and ordered to refund GH₵1,000 to her two complainants, in addition to fines for count 1.
According to reports, the court described Agradaa's original 15-year hard labour sentence as harsh and excessive, affirming her conviction but exercising its discretion to vary the punishment.
The revised sentence, effective from her conviction on July 3, 2025, means the founder of the Heaven Way International Ministry will serve a total of one year in prison.
In an interview with the media after the court session, Agradaa's lawyer confirmed the judgment in the appeal case.
He noted that he and his legal team had initially hoped the judge would dismiss the full 15-year jail term handed to his client in 2025.
The Instagram video of Agradaa's lawyer speaking after the court's ruling is below:
Following the reduction of Agradaa's sentence, there has been a lot of discussion on social media about the court's decision. Many have wondered about the reasoning behind the court's decision.
Why court reduced Agradaa's 15-year sentence
Sharing his thoughts on the decision and the subsequent social media debate, private legal practitioner Noah E. Tetteh has stated that the court acted within its rights and had not faltered.
According to him, there are two main offences for defrauding by false pretences, one for general defrauding, and the other for defrauding in the name of the President or Cabinet.
"Section 131 creates two distinct offences. Section 131(1) deals with general defrauding by false pretences. Section 131(2) creates a special and more serious form of the offence, where the accused defrauds someone by pretending to act for the President or a member of Cabinet."
He added that the punishments for the two were distinct.
Agradaa's conviction was likely a general defrauding by false pretences offence, under Section 131 Clause 1 of the Criminal Code (Act 29, 1960).
That is why section 132 exists. Section 132 is the definition section. It defines what “defrauding by false pretences” means for both offences under section 131.
The punishments for the two offences are also different. Section 131(1) merely classifies the offence as a second-degree felony. It does not specify the exact sentence. Section 131(2), on the other hand, expressly provides a sentence of between 10 and 25 years.
So where do we find the punishment for the offence under section 131(1)? We find it in a different legislation: Act 30. Section 296 of Act 30 provides that the punishment for defrauding by false pretense should not exceed 25 years. This means two things: first, for the offense under 131(1) the sentencing range runs from one day to 25 years. For the offense under 131(2), like already provided in the same section, punishment remains 10-25 years.
The critical question, therefore, is this: under which of the two offences was Agradaa charged and convicted?
If she was charged under section 131(1), as appears to be the case, then the lawful sentencing range was from one day to 25 years. In that situation, the appellate court was well within the law to reduce the sentence to one year.
Source: YEN.com.gh
