The dramatic fall from grace of self-styled spiritualist and televangelist Patricia Asiedua, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, has taken a new turn as
The dramatic fall from grace of self-styled spiritualist and televangelist Patricia Asiedua, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, has taken a new turn as she mounts a legal challenge against her 15-year prison sentence.
Convicted of defrauding scores of her followers through a money-doubling scheme aired on television and social media, Agradaa now claims she was denied a fair trial and is seeking to overturn both the conviction and the sentence.
From Spiritual Fame to Prison
Once a notorious traditional priestess before rebranding herself as a Christian evangelist, Nana Agradaa shot to national prominence with flashy sermons and late-night television appearances.
But in October 2022, she was arrested following multiple complaints from members of the public and congregants who accused her of using her Heaven Way Champions International Ministry platform to orchestrate a grand deception.
She had announced on Today’s TV and social media that she would be distributing GH¢300,000 at an all-night service on October 7, 2022, enticing desperate followers with the promise of receiving large sums in return for smaller contributions.
Many people reportedly traveled from across Ghana to attend the event, where they were instructed to form groups and contribute up to GH¢1,000 each in order to receive GH¢50,000 to share.
According to testimony, after collecting the money, Agradaa failed to fulfill her promise, instead dismissing the gathering with a bizarre statement that the money was for “Kofi and Ama collection,” leaving attendees confused and defrauded.
Court Evidence and Conviction
Agradaa’s trial before Circuit Court ‘10’ in Accra culminated in her conviction on July 3, 2025.
The court, presided over by Evelyn Asamoah, found her guilty of charlatanic advertisement and defrauding by false pretence, based on compelling evidence from the prosecution.
These are:
Video footage of her public appeals promising money distribution,
A cyber intelligence report confirming her digital footprint,
Her own caution statement admitting to creating and publishing the video invitations,
And testimonies from victims and eyewitnesses, which contradicted her defence.
The court found the actions to be premeditated, deceptive, and executed with intent to defraud—especially given that she turned off the lights during key moments and had missing footage in her submitted defence video.
Nana Agradaa was sentenced to 15 years in prison with hard labour, to run concurrently on two counts of fraud, and fined 25 penalty units for the charlatanic advertisement.
Her plea for leniency on account of being a mother of five and a “first-time” offender was dismissed, especially as the prosecution reminded the court of her prior conviction in 2021 on similar charges.
Legal Reversal Effort Begins
In a fresh twist, Agradaa’s legal team has filed an appeal at the High Court, arguing that the trial was riddled with judicial misconduct and unfair practices.
According to the appeal documents:
The trial judge allegedly exhibited personal bias, clashing with her defence team and intimidating counsel during open court proceedings.
The burden of proof, the lawyers argue, was improperly shifted onto the accused—forcing her to prove her innocence despite insufficient evidence from the prosecution.
The sentence, they claim, was excessively harsh and failed to consider mitigating circumstances.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications
The case has reignited debate about the regulation of faith-based institutions and televangelism, especially as charlatanic schemes and spiritual fraud continue to proliferate in the media and religious spaces.
Critics argue that Agradaa’s conviction, while justified, should prompt broader action by law enforcement and regulatory agencies.
However, some members of her now-dwindling support base view the sentence as overly punitive, citing political and moral persecution.
The appeal has, therefore, become a focal point for public interest, with observers closely watching how the judiciary will handle her bid for reversal.
COMMENTS