The High Court in Amasaman has described the 15-year custodial sentence imposed on convicted Evangelist Patricia Asiedua, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, as “unusually harsh and excessive”, and set it aside with a fresh punishment.
Instead of the 15 years, the Court, presided over by Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi, has imposed a fresh 12 calendar months’ custodial sentence on her, to be served in hard labour from July 3, 2025, when she was convicted for defrauding by false pretences.
The Court observed that the victims of the offence for which Nana Agradaa was convicted and sentenced to 15 years were only 2 in number, and the amount involved was also One Thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢1,000.00).
The Court has since ordered the refund of the amount involved, that is, the One Thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢1,000.00), to the victims of her crime, and reasoned that there is no defined minimum sentence of imprisonment imposed by law for this particular offence.
“Considering all the circumstances of the case together, I came to the irresistible conclusion that the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment IHL (in hard labour) imposed on the Appellant (Agradaa) was indeed unusually harsh and excessive,” the Judgment read in part.
Below are excerpts of the Judgment:
16.1.) THE DECISION OF THIS COURT ON THE SENTENCE THAT WAS IMPOSED ON THE APPELLANT
Having concluded that the sentence imposed on the Appellant by the court below was rather harsh and excessive, the question now is, and
can this court being an appellate court do anything about the sentence?
[6.2]. As already stated earlier in this judgement, the general principle of law
is that all appeals, be they civil or criminal, (as in the case under review), are by way of re-hearing and that the appellate court is clothed with the same power and authority as the court of first instance.
In the exercise of that power and authority, an appellate court such as this one, can make its own findings of facts and in exceptional circumstances, vary the conclusions reached by the court below, with the caveat however that the new conclusions reached by the appellate court should be supported by the ROA. There is a chain of authorities that supports this legal proposition that an appellate court may substitute new conclusions reached by the trial court so long as the ROA (Record of Appeal) supports the new conclusion reached by the appellate court and may thus set aside or vary such conclusions.
[16:3]. One of such cases is DOWUONA VRS. BARCLAYS BANK LTD [2023] GHSC 88, dated 195 July, 2023 wherein the Supreme Court, after stating that an appeal is by way of re-hearing also concluded that an appellate court is accordingly entitled to look at the entire evidence on the record of appeal to come to its own conclusions both on the law and the facts.
[16.4] This position has been stated adnauseam in almost all cases that have gone on appeal notable amongst which is the oft-cited case of TUAKWA VRS. BOSOM [2001-2002] SCGLK 61. See also OPPONG VRS. ANARFI (2011]1 SCGLR 556 and DEXTER JOHNSON VRS. THE REPUBLIC (unreported), Suit No J3/3/2010 dated 16% March, 2011, just
to mention but a few of such cases.
[6.5.] Having come to the obvious conclusion that this court is clothed with the power and authority to disturb the sentence imposed on the Appellant herein which the court has found to be harsh and excessive, I once again reiterate that every sentence must fit the crime and the conviction.
I agree in principle that the sentence that was imposed was to serve as a deterrence to future offenders but if care is not taken, then to quote the eminent statesman, President Kuffour, we may be “killing a common mosquito with a sledge hammer” and in the process, we may become a laughing stock in the comity of nations.
16.6.| In deciding on the kind of sentence that will fit both the crime and the Appellant, I sought refuge in the SELORMEY case. In the said case, Baddoo JA as aforementioned, expressed his disappointment in the failure of Victor Selormey to take advantage of statute, namely section 35 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) which has provisions for restitution in certain cases, saying that if Victor Selormey had even attempted to refund part of the amount involved, that attempt alone could have served as a mitigating factor in the kind of sentence he would have imposed on him.
I also make a similar observation in this case, (albeit from a different angle altogether, that is from the perspective of the Holy Book, the Bible), which is supposed to guide all Christians, especially Christian leaders such as the Appellant herein.
16.7.1 The Bible in Matthew 5:25-26 enjoins Christians as follows; “25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going
with him to court, lest your accuser hands you over to the judge and the judge to the guard and you will be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say unto you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny” (emphasis mine).
.8.] Indeed these words of wisdom from the Holy Bible and from the Christ Jesus himself are very profound and they perfectly suit the case at hand.
If the Appellant, who as we know is an evangelist, had adverted her mind to this biblical admonition, she would have settled her case with the complainants even before the case came to court and she will therefore not be where she is at the moment. This said, I will once again take guidance from the SELORMEY case supra and order the Appellant to refund the Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (Gh¢500.00) each amounting to One Thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢1000.00) to the two complainants in this case pursuant to the power conferred on this Court by section 147B (1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure)
Act, 1960, Act 29.
This order must be complied with by the 249 of February, 2026. The complainants may take a civil action against the Appellant to recover the said sum from the Appellant if she fails to refund the same to them as ordered by this Court.
17.0.1 To decide finally on whether or not to reduce the sentence of 15 years imprisonment IHL imposed on the Appellant, once again, (and may be for the very last time), I will seek guidance from the decision of the eminent Baddoo JA in the SELORMEY case supra.
Although the said decision in principle is not binding on me because although Justice Baddoo was a Justice of the Court of Appeal, in that particular case he sat as an additional Justice of the High Court, his said decision therefore is a decision of the High Court which is only persuasive and not binding on me and yet I have allowed myself to be persuaded by it not only because of the standing of Sam Baddoo in our Ghanaian criminal
jurisprudence but also because of the wisdom the decision itself exudes.
CONCLUSION:
In the light of the foregoing and having taken the following matters into consideration;
- That the victims of the offence for which the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 15 years were only 2 in number and the amount involved was also One Thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢1,000.00),
- That the Appellant has been ordered to refund the amount involved, that is the One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GhS 1000.00) to the victims of her crime,
- That there is no defined minimum sentence of imprisonment imposed by law for this particular offence.
- That the trial Circuit Court failed and/or refused to make the 32 days the Appellant had already spent in custody count.
- That in the opinion of the trial judge, the sentence of 15 years imprisonment IHL, was meant to serve as a deterrence, (a view I subscribe to), I hereby reduce the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment in hard labour (IL), imposed on the Appellant by the trial Circuit Court and rather sentence the Appellant in the following manner:
a. I affirm the Appellant’s sentence of 25 penalty units on count 1 or in default of her payment of this fine, the Appellant is to serve an additional term of three (3) months imprisonment in hard labour, (imposed on the Appellant by the court below).
b. The Appellant is further sentenced to 12 calendar months’ imprisonment in hard (IHL) on count 2 and count 3 from the date conviction, that is the 3rd of July, 2025.
c. The Appellant is further sentenced to a fine of 200 penalty units on counts 2 and 3. In default of her payment of the fine she is to serve an additional term of one year imprisonment in hard labour.
d. All the sentences mentioned in paragraphs “a”, “b” and “c” supra are to run concurrently and with retrospective effect from the date of her conviction and sentence, that is from 5th
July, 2025.
[7.1]. And now, this is just an addendum. Over the Christmas peried, particularly on 31st December, 2025, and even thereafter, as IL has become fashionable in Ghana, some pastors, knowing very well that this case was still pending before this court, were said to have made certain revelations and/or prophecies concerning the outcome of today’s judgment.
[7.2]. I wish to place it on record that as a Catholic, I believe in miracles because the virgin birth as well as the resurrection of the Christ, the foundation of Christianity itself, are both profound miracles. But in the particular case under reference, I want to assure everyone that the judgement was not in any way influenced by any prophecy but it was
based purely on the facts and the law that were placed before the court. Ours, no matter the imperfections in it, is a system based on the law and evidence placed before us and therefore let no man, no matter how powerful and prophetic he may be, claim any credit for what happened today. I will like to caution the men and women of God to hasten slowly in making pronouncements about cases that are sub-judice.
[7.3.]. After quoting extensively from the Holy Bible, I may sound paradoxical in saying that there should be no attempt to mix religion and justice delivery. I am not saying that religion does not have a place in judicial adjudication and justice delivery because after all, we still swear on both the Holy Bible and the Quran and we also affirm in the courts. But my caution has to do with the penchant to prophetically predict the outcome of pending court cases because such prophecies are not fair to both the parties and the court itself. Let us leave the courts to use laid down and well-proven procedures and not religious dictates
to carry out their mandate.
Source: Starrfm.com.gh
