GUILTY BUT TOO BIG TO BE BEHIND BARS? THE CASE OF PATRICIA ASIEDUAA ALIAS NANA AGRADAA VS THE REPUBLIC

On Tuesday, 3rd March, 2026, reports on social media and online news portals appeared to show that one Evangelist Patricia Asieduaa had been released from prison. The news of her release has caused mixed reactions from the public. Whilst her followers celebrated her release, many discerning Ghanaians have reacted to the news of her release with strong criticism, and their reason is simply that the judicial system appears to have enabled her “celebrity status” to influence the outcome of the case.

Introduction

Cases involving high profile personalities in general and this case in particular, have fuelled negative public perception that, some individuals have become too powerful in the country that when they go against the law, they are not held accountable for their actions. These individuals are well-known personalities who were propelled into the public limelight through their contributions to politics, sports, business, entertainment or religion.

It would appear as though the catchphrase, “do not do the crime if you cannot do the time” to a large extent, is not applicable to these well-known personalities because for some technical or other reasons, they tend to get away with crimes or get little more than a slap on the wrist even when they are found liable. In those few instances when they are actually prosecuted, they are generally sentenced more leniently than citizens who faced similar charges. They receive prison sentences less frequently and serve less prison time than citizens facing similar charges for crimes.

Based on the existing perception, the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of Patricia Asieduaa alias Nana Agradaa vs The Republic² (The Agradaa case) has unleashed more criticism by a public suspicious that there is a judicial bias in favour of well-known personalities. This begs the question of whether there is indeed judicial bias in favour of well-known personalities and whether there is a double standard at which well-known personalities and the citizens are subjected to when they find themselves before the Courts.

Is There A “Too Big to Be Behind Bars” Problem?

To put it quite bluntly, the popular narrative that well-known personalities usually avoid prison is alien to the Ghanaian system of justice. The category of person, be rich or poor, popular or unpopular, privileged or underprivileged, young or old, is not an exception to the equal application of the law.³

There is a litany of cases where well-known personalities were found guilty and thrown behind bars. Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie and William Tetteh Tevie, former Board Chairman and Director-General respectively of National Communication Authority, found themselves serving a term of five years imprisonment after being convicted for wilfully causing financial loss to the State.⁴ Abuga Pele, a former Member of Parliament, was sentenced to six years in prison, facing the full force of the law after his conviction.⁵ Victor Selormey, a former Deputy Minister for Finance was convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment.⁶ Mallam Ali Yusuf Issah, a former Minister for Youth and Sports was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to concurrent terms of four years imprisonment in respect of stealing and fraudulently causing financial loss to the State.⁷ William Ato Essien, a former CEO of defunct Capital Bank, was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.⁸ Sedina Tamakloe, former CEO of Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), was convicted in absentia and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.⁹ Ibrahim Sima, former CEO of a modelling agency, was convicted in 2011 for possession and attempt to export narcotics and sentenced to a 15-year jail term.¹⁰ Nana Akwasi Agyeman alias Geeman, then musician and dancer, and Abeiku Nyame alias Jaggerpee, then actor, were sentenced to death by hanging and sentenced for life respectively. On appeal, the Court of Appeal convicted Jaggerpee of assault, quashing the initial conviction of abetment of murder, and he was sentenced to a two-year jail term, while Geeman’s conviction was affirmed.¹¹

Admittedly, well-known personalities possess privileges unavailable to others. However, if the above-cited cases are anything to go by, they tend to prove that the legal system treats them no differently; rather, significant expectations are placed upon them for the privileged status they occupy. They inspire and influence the younger generation who hold them in high regard. It is only right, therefore, that when people in positions of authority, respect, influence, or favourable circumstances fail the nation, it is treated with all the seriousness it requires.

Is The Sentence in Agradaa’s Case Common?

When a person is found to be criminally liable for the commission of a criminal act, that person is convicted of the offense and sentenced accordingly.

Section 132 of Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) articulates the definition of defrauding by false pretences. It states that:

“A person is guilty of defrauding by false pretences if, by means of any false pretences, or by personation he obtains the consent of another person to part with or transfer the ownership of anything.”

In determining whether the sentence imposed in the Agradaa case is consistent with the law or she received some preferential treatment as a well-known personality, recourse is made to section 131 of Act 29 and section 296(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30).

Section 131 of Act 29 states that:

“(1) A person who defrauds any other person by a false pretence commits a second degree felony”.

Section 296(5) of Act 30 states that:

“A person convicted of a criminal offence under any of the following sections of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), that is to say, sections 124, 128, 131, 138, 145, 151, 152, 154, 158, 165, 239, 252, 253 and 260 is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twenty-five years”

In The Agradaa case, the learned trial judge clearly had the discretion to impose any sentence which is not more than twenty-five (25) years. The sentence imposed was clearly within the confines of the law. It is mandatory for a trial judge to impose a custodial sentence and the judge may decide to sentence the convicted person to a fine in addition to the prison sentence.¹²

Facts of The Agradaa Case

The Circuit Court on 5th July, 2025, convicted and sentenced Agradaa of 25 penalty units or in default of payment serve three months imprisonment for charlatanic advertisement in newspapers. She was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour for defrauding by false pretences. Agradaa then appealed against her conviction and sentence. On the back of the appeal, the High Court affirmed her convictions and sentence of 25 penalty units or in default of payment serve three months imprisonment for charlatanic advertisement in newspapers. Nonetheless, the High Court substituted the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court with a sentence of 12 calendar months’ imprisonment for defrauding by false pretences.

How different is The Agradaa case from other defrauding by false pretence cases?

It is convenient at this point to consider briefly some decided cases on defrauding by false pretences and the sentences imposed on the convicts therein.

Earlier, in the case of Blay vs The Republic,¹³ the appellant represented to the complainant that he could multiply an amount of money. The complainant paid G2,000.00 to the appellant. He was convicted of defrauding by false pretences and handed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence of three years to eighteen (18) months in prison.

In the case of Darkurugu vs The Republic,¹⁴ the accused person was arraigned before the trial court on charges of fraud by false pretences and deceit of public officer. He was convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the court substituted the twelve months’ imprisonment for the offence of defrauding by false pretences with a fine of GHS 1,000.00 and in default three months’ imprisonment.

In the case of Republic vs Appiah,¹⁵ the accused person, an Aviation Security Officer, who took an amount of GHS 20,000.00 from the complainant, was found guilty of defrauding by false pretences. The accused person was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months in hard labour.

In the case of Republic vs Damian,¹⁶ the accused person, a national of Cameroon, was charged with defrauding the complainant of GHS 36,000.00 by false pretences. The accused person was convicted and sentenced to six (6) months in prison custody and a fine of 700 penalty units, in default another six (6) months in prison custody.

Also, in the case of Republic vs Mills,¹⁷ the accused person was convicted for defrauding the first complainant of USD $4,500.00 and GHS 10,000.00 and the second complainant of GHS 42,000.00. The accused person was sentenced to pay a fine of 3000 penalty units or, in default, eight (8) months imprisonment on each count.

Quite recently, in Republic vs Opoku,¹⁸ the accused person parted with an amount of GHS 15,000.00 under the pretext of providing “pragia” to the complainant. After conviction, the accused person was sentenced to a fine of 80 penalty units or in default eight (8) months imprisonment.

From a comparative analysis for cases involving the same offence as Agradaa’s case, the result is that the initial sentence imposed in The Agradaa case focused too heavily on her personality as a well-known individual as opposed to ensuring proportionality among deterrence, precedent and established facts. Her status as an offender to an extent was a factor when the trial judge considered the custodial sentence, as it “would send a clear message to deter all would be offender”.¹⁹ It was, therefore, unsurprising that the sentence was reduced on appeal.

Conclusion

It is common to hear that something is awry with the legal system in Ghana since well-known personalities who commit criminal offences appear to be treated with light gloves. The analysis made indicate that contrary to the assertion that well-known personalities are immune to prison terms, well-known personalities are not above the law and are made to face the full price for their actions.

These well-known personalities are rather used as scapegoats, in order to illustrate a point. The Courts know and understand how much society idolizes these personalities. Subjecting them to severe punishment for their crimes, the courts hope to deter the ordinary citizen from committing such crimes.

To the best of my knowledge, Agradaa’s status seems to have played a role in her sentencing when she was before the trial judge. If Agradaa was not well-known, it is probable that she would have been subjected to the standard punishment applicable to any other citizen or to a large extent been sentenced to pay a fine or in default, serve some months prison term just like “Patrick”²⁰. Agradaa’s influence made it easier for her to be used as a sacrificial lamb, however, just as the angel of the Lord intervened at the last moment for Isaac on Mount Moriah,²¹ Agradaa perhaps on a different mountain was saved from 15 years imprisonment.

Although it difficult to deny that well-known personalities may receive preferential treatment or judicial favour, I am clear in my mind, based on the analysis that preferential treatment did not seep over into the outcome of the High Court decision in The Agradaa case.