|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction
Nana Agradaa, born Patricia Asieduaa, was once a popular traditional priestess who later became a Christian evangelist. A circuit court in Accra, Ghana, has sentenced her to 15 years in prison with hard labour. On three counts of defrauding by false pretence, the conviction marks the latest and most severe legal consequence in a long controversy surrounding the self-proclaimed “spiritual mother” and founder of Heaven Way Champion International Ministry in Weija, Accra.
Agradaa first made headlines with her media broadcasts, promising miraculous wealth multiplication (so-called “Sika Gari” or money-doubling schemes). As early as June 2021, she was convicted and fined GH₵36,000 by an Accra court for “Charlatanic advertisement” in connection with her TV-promoted money-doubling rituals.
In recent years, she has also been involved in public spats with other figures (for example, a GH₵20 million defamation suit brought by gospel singer Empress Gifty in 2025) – events that have made Agradaa a controversial figure in Ghanaian media.
The 2022 ‘Money Doubling’ Fraud Scheme
The case that led to Agradaa’s jail sentence arose from a widely publicised church event in October 2022. Agradaa aired a Today‑TV advertisement inviting the public to an all-night church service at her Heaven Way Champions International Ministry in Weija, promising that any money offered would be supernaturally doubled. She displayed bundles of cash on camera and instructed believers to form groups (e.g., 20 people each), with each person donating GH₵1,000 for a promised return of GH₵50,000 to be shared.
Hundreds of people across Ghana reportedly attended the service, hoping for miraculous gains. However, after the event, these congregants say Agradaa failed to deliver the promised payouts. At least six individuals filed official police complaints claiming they were defrauded, and authorities estimate that well over a thousand people may have been affected by the scheme.
Trial and 15‑Year Sentence
In mid‑2025, Agradaa was tried at the Accra Circuit Court on six counts: one was a charlatanic advertisement, and false pretences defrauded five. The prosecution’s case centred on the 2022 televised event: witness statements and video evidence were presented to show Agradaa soliciting money under false pretences. On July 3, 2025, the judge found Agradaa guilty of one charlatanic advertisement and four counts of fraud. Two of the fraud counts (Counts 4 and 5) were acquitted and discharged for lack of evidence, a point emphasised by the defence.
Before imposing a sentence, the court ordered the mandatory pregnancy test (as required under Ghanaian law), which came back negative. The judge then sentenced Agradaa to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour, to run concurrently, for the four remaining convictions. Under Ghana’s law, charlatanic advertisements alone carry a relatively light penalty (a fine or a short jail term), but Agradaa’s fraud convictions (though involving a relatively small total sum) are felonies. Local press reported that the ruling was “hailed as a significant step in the fight against religious fraud,” sending a message that predatory money‑doubling schemes would be punished.
Lawyer’s Objections
Agradaa’s lawyer, Richard Asare-Baffour, who spoke exclusively to DUBAWA, cited serious concerns about the conviction’s judicial basis:
“It’s a movement for having a typical example of clandestine justice. We are extremely concerned about the reasoning of the court.”
He questioned why, if counts 4 and 5 lacked evidence, the court allowed Agradaa to open her defence:
“If you knew that prosecution led no evidence … what basis did you have for doing so?”
He also highlighted inconsistencies in the video evidence. While the prosecution claimed darkness obscured key events, his team argued:
“They claimed … we made some payments. If this actually happened, it should be visible in the video. But … those activities were never seen.”
He further pointed out that the court identified money recipients as “collaborators” without charging them with conspiracy despite their visibility on video.
“If the people were the collaborators … the police would have arrested them.”
Finally, Asare-Baffour asserted that Agradaa was judged on her persona, not her actions.
“Agradaa has been sentenced … because of who she is and not what she did.”
He confirmed an appeal is being filed in the High Court.
What the Law Says About Agradaa’s Charges
A. Charlatanic Advertisement
Agradaa was convicted under Section 137 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), also known as “charlatanic advertisement.” This provision criminalises broadcasting or publishing false claims, especially those that exploit people’s belief in supernatural powers for personal gain. The Ghana Police and broadcast authorities have repeatedly warned that such practices are “unethical but criminal and punishable under the laws of Ghana.”
B. Defrauding by False Pretence
The primary charges — four counts of defrauding by false pretence — are grounded in Sections 131 and 132 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, which define the offence as obtaining property from another by knowingly making false representations. For a conviction, prosecutors must prove three elements:
- A false representation of fact,
- Made knowingly or recklessly,
- With intent to deceive and cause the victim to hand over property.
In Agradaa’s case, the prosecution argued that she falsely promised miraculous money multiplication to her followers, inducing them to pay sums totalling as much as GH₵300,000 combined, which meets these criteria.
The Constitution’s Role
1. Freedom of Religion vs. Regulation of Fraudulent Claims
While the 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 21, it also stipulates that no one shall use such freedoms to defraud others. Anyone alleging constitutional inconsistency has direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
2. Due Process & Fair Trial
The Constitution prohibits arbitrary exercises of state power, requiring judicial proceedings to be conducted with fairness, impartiality, and respect for evidence. Agradaa’s defence has argued that the court may have violated these principles—particularly by calling her to present a defence on counts later deemed unsupported by evidence.
3. Checks on Judicial Discretion
Article 296 obliges all discretionary powers, including sentencing, to be executed fairly and non-arbitrarily. Her legal team contends that a 15-year custodial sentence for relatively small sums contradicts the principle of proportionality.
Next Steps
Agradaa’s 15‑year sentence will begin after she reports to custody. (Under Ghanaian practice, she was taken to the police cells immediately following the court ruling.) Heaven Way Champions International Ministry’s church continues to operate in her absence; her husband (Pastor Eric Asiamah) has urged congregants to remain prayerful.
Conclusion
Legally, Ghana’s statutes empower the state to prosecute fraudulent spiritual claims and regulate them under criminal law. However, given the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process, and fairness, Agradaa’s sentence raises critical legal questions: Were her convictions proportionate and evidence-based? Was judicial discretion applied without bias? The forthcoming High Court appeal—and potential Supreme Court review—will likely establish critical legal precedents that balance religious liberty against state regulation of fraud.
