After serving eight months in prison, Patricia Asiedu Asiamah, also known as Nana Agradaa, was released from Nsawam Prison after a successful appeal significantly shortened her initial sentence.
“Thank God my wife is finally home,” her husband wrote in a Facebook post on Tuesday, March 3, confirming her release.
On July 3, 2025, an Accra Circuit Court sentenced Nana Agradaa to 15 years in jail on two charges of defrauding by false pretence and charlatanic advertisement. The sentences were to be served concurrently.
The conviction stemmed from a 2022 televised broadcast in which she declared she would distribute GH¢300,000 to the people, but instead gathered different amounts of money without disbursing any of it.
At the Amasaman High Court, her attorneys contested the punishment, claiming it was disproportionate. Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi concurred and shortened the jail period to twelve calendar months in a decision rendered in February 2026.
“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 ruled.
The amended sentence was mandated to go into effect on July 3, 2025, the date of conviction.
Additionally, the High Court fined her GH¢2,400 and threatened to imprison her for an extra three months if she didn’t pay.
According to the court’s reasoning, the trial judge did not adequately consider the extent of the offence.
According to the verdict, “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 High Court noted that two complainants lost GH¢500 apiece, for a total of GH¢1,000, according to the trial record.
It made clear, nonetheless, that the comparatively little amount did not justify the illegal behaviour.
“The court is not by any stretch of imagination to be understood to be saying that because there were only two victims of the Appellant’s conduct or because the amount involved was only GH¢1,000, the Appellant did not commit any crime nor is it also to be understood to be saying that because of the rather small amount of money, the victims did not suffer any losses at all,” the ruling stated.
“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 further criticised the way in which evidential inconsistencies were handled.
Source: newsthemegh.com