Daniel Korang, an author and partner at Adom Legal Consult, has defended the Amasaman High Court’s decision to reduce the 15-year jail term of Evangelist Patricia Asiedua, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, saying the ruling was guided by law and judicial procedure.

“Sentencing at every stage of a criminal trial is a judicial exercise that is regulated by law. It is never a function of the lottery,” Korang said on The Law on Joy News, adding that judges must weigh both mitigating and aggravating factors before determining punishment.

He explained that in Agradaa’s case, mitigating factors—such as being a first-time offender and the relatively small amount of money involved—likely influenced the court’s decision. “In this case, I know that Agradaa was a first offender, and the amount involved in the fraud was relatively small compared to other cases.

These are important considerations that likely influenced the court,” he noted.

The Amasaman High Court, on February 5, 2026, reduced Agradaa’s sentence from 15 years to 12 months, backdated to her conviction date of July 3, 2025, leaving her with only five months to serve.

Agradaa is currently serving her sentence at Nsawam Female Prison after being convicted by the Accra Circuit Court for charlatanic advertising and defrauding by false pretences.

She was accused of collecting money from church attendees through promises of money-doubling powers during all-night services promoted on Today’s TV and social media platforms.

Prosecutors said over 1,000 people attended the service, handing over significant sums, but the promised financial gains did not materialise.

Agradaa appealed the sentence, arguing that the trial was unfair, the evidence insufficient, and that the 15-year term was excessive. She first appeared before the Amasaman High Court on December 4, 2025.

Korang also cautioned that viral social media attention can complicate public perception of justice, but judges must remain guided by law.

“When a case like this is flying on social media, it is very difficult to maintain a candid position on the law. Not everybody will agree with the legal position, but the court’s responsibility is to apply the law fairly,” he said.