|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction
The High Court in Amasaman has delivered its judgment in the appeal filed by Patricia Asieduaa, popularly known as Agradaa, challenging both her conviction and the 15-year prison sentence imposed by an Accra Circuit Court in July 2025. While the court upheld her conviction, it significantly reduced her sentence to 12 calendar months, finding the punishment imposed by the lower court excessive. The full judgment can be found here.
Background
The case stemmed from events in October 2022. The prosecution’s evidence showed that Agradaa advertised on television that she would share GH¢300,000 at a church all-night service scheduled for October 7, 2022. Videos of the advertisement were tendered in court. Two complainants testified that they attended the service after watching the broadcast and that each paid GH¢540 in reliance on the promise of payment. According to the prosecution, no such distribution took place.
The original conviction and sentence
The Circuit Court convicted her of three counts: one of charlatanic advertisement and two of defrauding by false pretences. She was sentenced to a fine of 25 penalty units on the first count and to 15 years’ imprisonment with hard labour on the two fraud counts, with the sentences to run concurrently, meaning she would serve 15 years in total.
Grounds of the appeal
In her appeal, she argued that the conviction was unsupported by the evidence, that the trial judge wrongly called on her to “prove her innocence,” that the judge demonstrated bias against her, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.
Why the high court upheld the conviction
On charlatanic advertisement
On the issue of conviction, the High Court disagreed with her arguments. It held that the prosecution had established the essential elements of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt. In relation to charlatanic advertisement under Section 137 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, the court found that the televised promise to share GH¢300,000 was a representation capable of deceiving members of the public.
On defrauding by false pretences
Regarding defrauding by false pretences, the court outlined the legal requirements: a false representation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, reliance by the victim, and loss resulting from that reliance. The High Court concluded that these elements were satisfied. The two complainants testified that they paid money in reliance on the advertised promise, and the court was satisfied that the representation was made without any intention of fulfilling it.
The allegation of judicial bias
The appeal court also rejected the allegation of judicial bias. It emphasised that accusations of bias must be supported by clear evidence on the record. After reviewing the Record of Appeal, the judge stated that there was no indication of hostility, intimidation, or unfair conduct by the trial judge. Mere assertions, the court held, are insufficient to overturn a conviction.
Why was the sentence reduced?
However, while affirming the convictions, the High Court took a different view on sentencing. It acknowledged that the offence of defrauding by false pretences carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment but does not prescribe a minimum sentence. Sentencing, the court noted, must be proportionate and must “fit both the crime and the offender.”
The High Court observed that the total amount proven in court was GH¢1,000 to GH¢500 from each complainant. Although the conduct was described as reprehensible and deserving of punishment, the court found that a 15-year custodial sentence was unusually harsh given the scale of the proven loss. It also noted that the trial court failed to account for the 32 days the appellant had already spent in custody before sentencing, as required under Article 14(6) of the Constitution.
The new sentence
Taking these factors into account, the High Court reduced the custodial sentence. It ordered the appellant to refund GH¢1,000 to the two complainants by February 24, 2026, and imposed a reduced term of imprisonment and fines, with the sentences to run concurrently and to take effect from the date of conviction.
In essence, the High Court affirmed that the offences were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that fraud had indeed been committed. However, it ruled that punishment must be measured and proportionate. The decision reinforces a central principle of criminal justice: while the courts must deter wrongdoing and protect the public, sentencing must remain fair, balanced, and grounded in the specific facts of the case.
