Patricia Asiedu Asiamah, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, was freed from Nsawam Prison after eight months in custody, after a successful appeal that significantly shortened her previous jail sentence.
Her husband posted on Facebook on Tuesday, March 3, announcing her release with the statement, “Thank God my wife is finally home.” On July 3, 2025, the Accra Circuit Court imposed a 15-year prison sentence to Nana Agradaa, with the sentences to run concurrently for two counts of fraudulent deception and deceptive advertising. Following a live television broadcast in 2022, in which she promised to give the public GH300,000 but instead collected different amounts of money and made no distributions, she was found guilty.
Her legal team petitioned the Amasaman High Court to overturn the sentence, arguing that it was harsh. In February 2026, Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi issued a judgement concurring with the sentence and lowering the jail sentence to 12 calendar months.
Considering all the facts of the case, the court decided that the appellant’s 15-year sentence was undoubtedly disproportionate and excessive.
The amended sentence was ordered to go into effect on the day of the conviction, which was July 3, 2025. The High Court also sentenced her to three months in jail or a fine of GH2,400.
The court stated in its decision that the trial judge did not give enough consideration to the seriousness of the crime. According to the court, the trial judge “did not give fair consideration to the enormity of the crime involved, but she became fixated only on the person involved in imposing the sentence on the Appellant.”
According to the trial record, the High Court concluded that each of the two plaintiffs suffered a loss of GHc500, totaling GHc1,000. Nonetheless, it made it clear that the fact that the offense was committed with a small sum of money was no excuse. “The court’s decision that the Appellant did not commit any offense cannot be inferred by any stretch of the imagination from the fact that the Appellant only had two victims or that the amount in question was only GH¢1,000.” Furthermore, the statement went on, the low sum of money should not lead one to believe that the victims were not harmed at all.
In addition, the court underscored the manner in which the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence were addressed, saying: “In an odd way, the Honorable trial judge’s judgment only referenced the discrepancies in the Appellant’s evidence while completely ignoring the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, even in passing, even though there were certainly some discrepancies in the evidence on both sides.”
About the Author
