Private legal practitioner, Prince Benson Mankotam, has criticised the High Court’s decision to reduce the 15-year jail sentence handed to Evangelist Patricia Asiedua, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, arguing that even with mitigation, the sentence should not have fallen below five years.
Speaking on Starr Showbiz with Feeling Daddy on Starr 103.5 FM on Saturday, February 7, Mankotam maintained that the offence of defrauding by false pretence is classified as a serious second-degree felony under Ghana’s criminal law and attracts a maximum sentence of up to 25 years.
“In law, defrauding by false pretence is a second-degree felony, and the punishment ranges from five years to twenty-five years,” he stated.
The lawyer explained that while courts have the discretion to reduce sentences, such discretion must operate within the framework of Ghana’s sentencing guidelines, which, in his view, were not properly applied in this case.
“Even if the court was minded to reduce the sentence, it should not have gone below five years,” Mankotam said. “That is the minimum threshold for a second-degree felony.”
READ: High Court overlooked aggravating factors in Agradaa’s case – Legal practitioner
He further argued that the High Court overlooked several aggravating factors associated with the offence, particularly the abuse of religious authority and the vulnerability of the victims. “This was not an ordinary fraud case. The accused used religion, positioned herself as a pastor, and targeted people who believed they were receiving spiritual intervention. That alone is a serious aggravating factor,” he explained.
According to Mankotam, the sentencing guidelines introduced by the judiciary were designed to promote consistency and proportionality in criminal punishment, and deviating significantly from them risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.
“The whole idea behind sentencing guidelines is to ensure consistency. When sentences fall far below established thresholds, it sends the wrong signal and sets a bad precedent,” he noted.
He also clarified that the value of money involved and the number of victims should not automatically result in a lighter sentence.
READ: High Court reduces Agradaa’s 15-year sentence to one year
“Sentencing is not just about the amount involved. It is about the nature of the offence, the position of trust abused, and the broader impact on society,” he added.
Mankotam indicated that the reduced sentence is not final and can still be challenged. “The Attorney-General has the right to appeal if it is believed that the sentence does not align with the law,” he said.
Source: Starrfm.com.gh
