Nana Agradaa reunites with family after successful appeal reduces prison term

Patricia Asiedu Asiamah, widely known as Nana Agradaa, has been reunited with her family following her release from Nsawam Prison after eight months in custody. Her freedom comes after a successful legal appeal that significantly reduced her initial 15-year sentence.

Her husband announced her return in a heartfelt Facebook post on Tuesday, March 3, stating simply: “Thank God my wife is finally home.”

The controversial television personality was originally sentenced on July 3, 2025, by an Accra Circuit Court to 15 years’ imprisonment on charges of defrauding by false pretense and charlatanic advertisement, with sentences running concurrently. The conviction stemmed from a 2022 televised broadcast where she promised to share GH¢300,000 with the public but instead collected money from viewers without making any disbursements.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, her legal team appealed at the Amasaman High Court, arguing the sentence was excessive. In a February 2026 judgment, Justice Solomon Oppong-Twumasi concurred, reducing the custodial term to 12 calendar months.

“Considering all the circumstances of the case together, I came to the irresistible conclusion that the sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed on the Appellant was indeed unusually harsh and excessive,” the judge ruled.

The revised sentence was backdated to take effect from her original conviction date of July 3, 2025. Additionally, the High Court imposed a GH¢2,400 fine, with a further three-month prison term should she fail to pay.

In his analysis, Justice Oppong-Twumasi noted that the trial judge had not adequately considered the scale of the offense, focusing excessively on the personality of the appellant rather than the crime’s magnitude. He also pointed out that the trial record indicated only two complainants, each losing GH¢500—amounting to GH¢1,000 in total—though he emphasized this did not excuse the criminal conduct.

“The court is not by any stretch of imagination to be understood to be saying that because there were only two victims… the Appellant did not commit any crime,” the ruling clarified.

The judgment further criticized the trial court’s handling of evidential inconsistencies, observing that while the defense’s inconsistencies were highlighted, similar inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case were overlooked.