The Amasaman High Court has reduced the custodial sentence imposed on controversial evangelist and former traditional priestess Nana Agradaa, ruling that although her conviction was lawful, the original punishment was harsh and excessive.
Nana Agradaa, who was initially sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment with hard labour, will now serve 12 calendar months, following the court’s review of her sentence. The revised term is to be calculated from the date of her conviction on July 3, 2025, meaning the conviction itself remains fully intact and legally valid.
In its ruling, the court made it clear that it was not overturning the guilty verdict, but rather adjusting the length of the sentence to reflect what it described as a more proportionate and balanced punishment under the law.
The court stressed that Nana Agradaa was rightly found guilty of the offences for which she was charged, affirming that the trial court acted within the law in securing her conviction. However, upon review, the High Court held that the 15-year sentence exceeded what was reasonably necessary to achieve justice.
According to the court, sentencing must strike a balance between punishment, deterrence, and fairness. While criminal sanctions are meant to hold offenders accountable and discourage similar conduct, they must also align with established legal principles and proportionality.
“The conviction stands,” the court noted, adding that the issue before it was not guilt or innocence, but whether the punishment imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.
In reducing the sentence, the court highlighted the principle of proportionality, a core concept in criminal justice that requires punishment to be commensurate with the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
The judge explained that sentencing should not be driven solely by public outrage or the controversial nature of a defendant, but must be grounded in fairness, consistency, and precedent.
The court further noted that justice must be tempered with moderation, cautioning against punishments that may appear punitive beyond necessity.
Nana Agradaa, a former traditional priestess who later became a self-styled Christian evangelist, has been a polarising public figure in Ghana for several years. Her case attracted significant public attention due to her prominence, controversial religious practices, and the nature of the offences for which she was convicted.
Her initial 15-year sentence with hard labour sparked intense debate across the country, with some applauding the punishment as a strong deterrent, while others argued it was unduly severe compared to sentences handed down in similar cases.
The High Court’s decision appears to acknowledge these concerns while maintaining the integrity of the original conviction.
Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that sentencing remains fair and consistent, even in high-profile cases. By upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence, the court demonstrated a distinction between criminal liability and punitive excess.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that Ghana’s appellate and review processes exist not only to correct wrongful convictions, but also to adjust punishments that fall outside acceptable legal bounds.
With the revised sentence now set at 12 months, Nana Agradaa will serve a significantly reduced term, while her conviction remains on record. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing accountability with fairness, and reinforces the principle that justice must be both firm and proportionate.
As reactions continue, the case remains a notable example of how Ghana’s courts navigate punishment, public interest, and legal restraint in controversial matters.
