High Court Cuts Nana Agradaa’s Jail Term to One Year, Calls Original Sentence Excessive
Goku Justice - 5th February 2026
The Amasaman High Court has reduced the prison sentence of controversial evangelist Nana Agradaa from 15 years to 12 calendar months, ruling that the original punishment was overly severe in relation to the offence committed.
In a decision that has already reignited public debate, the court upheld Nana Agradaa’s conviction but exercised its discretionary powers to substantially vary the sentence handed down by the trial court. While affirming that the offence deserved custodial punishment, the presiding judge held that the 15-year term with hard labour was harsh and disproportionate under the circumstances.
The court stressed that sentencing must strike a careful balance between punishment and fairness. According to the ruling, penalties should reflect not only the seriousness of the offence but also the principle of proportionality, which requires that a sentence aligns reasonably with the nature of the crime and the offender’s situation. In this case, the judge concluded that the original sentence went beyond what was necessary to achieve justice.
As a result of the reduction, Nana Agradaa will now serve a total of 12 months in prison. The court ordered that the revised sentence take effect from July 3, 2025, the date on which she was originally convicted, meaning she will not serve any additional time beyond the one-year period.
ALSO SEEA Comprehensive Topics, Questions and answers for Ghana National Fire service Applicants
Nana Agradaa, who was once known as a traditional fetish priestess before rebranding herself as a Christian evangelist, was convicted earlier this year after a trial that attracted widespread public attention. Her subsequent sentencing to 15 years’ imprisonment with hard labour sparked intense discussion across the country, particularly within legal and religious circles.
Many legal practitioners and members of the public questioned whether the punishment fit the offence, arguing that it appeared excessive when compared with sentences imposed in similar cases. Others, however, defended the original ruling as a strong deterrent against criminal conduct.
By reducing the sentence while maintaining the conviction, the High Court sought to clarify that justice is not only about punishment but also about fairness and balance. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that sentences remain measured, reasonable, and consistent with established legal principles, even in high-profile and emotionally charged cases.
