Wondering why Agradaa was released?: ere are key highlights.

By Joana QUAYNOR Esq

Patricia Asiedua, the founder of Heaven Way Champions International Ministry, was accused of defrauding church attendees during an all-night service on October 7, 2022.

It was the Prosecution’s case that on October 5, 2022, the accused advertised on television and social media that she would distribute GH¢300,000.00 during an all-night service to help people with business capital and rent. She displayed bundles of cash during the advert to encourage attendance.

During the service, the accused allegedly directed the congregation to form groups of 20 people and pay specific sums ranging from GH¢500 to GH¢1,000. She promised that these groups would receive much larger sums of GH¢25,000 and GH¢50,000 respectively in return. After collecting the money, the lights and cameras were reportedly turned off. The accused then claimed the money collected was for a “Kofi ni Ama” offertory and did not provide the promised funds, leaving attendees stranded.

Charge & conviction
The Accused was charged with 1 Count of Charlatanic Advertisement (contrary to section 137 of Act 29) and 4 Counts of Defrauding by False Pretences (contrary to section 131(1) of Act 29). However, only two of the Complainants pursued the case.

On July 3, 2025, the Appellant was convicted by the Circuit Court, Accra, on three counts:
Count 1: Charlatanic Advertisement
Counts 2 & 3: Defrauding by False Pretence.

In imposing the sentence on the Appellant, the trial court gave three (3) reasons for its decision. First, the court found the Appellant’s conduct to be reprehensible secondly, it also considered that these types of crime is prevalent in our society and finally, the court also said that the Appellant did not show any remorse for the offence.

The Appellant was subsequently and consequently sentenced to a fine of 25 penalty units or in default 30 days imprisonment on count 1 and 15 years Imprisonment with Hard Labour (IHL), on counts 2 and 3, with all sentences to run concurrently,

The Appellant Appealed

2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The Appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence on the following grounds:

1. That the conviction was not supported by the evidence on record.

2. That the trial judge allegedly denied the Appellant a fair trial by requiring her to “prove her innocence” before the prosecution established a prima facie case.

3. That the trial judge persistently harassed and intimidated defence lawyers thereby denying effective representation.

4. That the15-year sentence was excessive given the circumstances of the case.

High Court’s decision

On the Conviction
The High Court affirmed the conviction on all counts.

1. The court found that the Appellant used TV and social media to advertise a church service where she claimed she would share GH¢300,000.00. She knew this representation was false and intended to deceive the public.

2. The court held that evidence showed the complainants (PW1 and PW2) acted on these advertisements, attended the service, and were defrauded of GH¢540.00 each.

3. The court found no evidence in the Record of Appeal (ROA) to support claims of judicial bias or harassment. It also ruled that the trial judge correctly called for a defense because a prima facie case had indeed been established.

On the Sentence
The Court set aside the 15-year sentence, finding it “unusually harsh and excessive”.
The court noted the total amount defrauded was only GH¢1,000.00 and a 15-year sentence meant the Appellant was serving one year for every GH¢100 taken, which the court likened to “killing a common mosquito with a sledge hammer”.

The court further held the trial court failed to take into account the 32 days the Appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing and ignored her expressions of remorse which resulted in substantial injustice.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS
The High Court modified the penalties as follows:

The Appellant’s sentence of 25 penalty units on count 1 or in default to serve an additional term of three (3) months imprisonment in hard labour was affirmed by the court.

The 15-year term was reduced to 12 calendar months IHL, effective from the date of conviction.

The Appellant was sentenced to a fine of 200 penalty units on Counts 2 and 3, or in default to an additional one year imprisonment with hard labour.

The court ordered the Appellant to refund GH¢1,000.00 to the victims of her crime (the two complainants) by 24th February, 2026.

All sentences are to run concurrently.

Key takeaway

An appeal is a re-hearing; the court can re-examine evidence to ensure the “punishment fits the crime”.

The judge noted a lacuna in the law that Section 137 of Act 29 on charlatanic advertisement specifically mentions “newspapers”, (though the court situated the conduct of the Appellant under ” … the use of subtle craft, means or device” in order to bring in TV advertisements under the section ), its further called on Parliament to update the law to explicitly cover modern media like TV and social media.

While judges have wide discretion in sentencing for felonies, Article 296 of the Constitution requires this power to be exercised fairly, not arbitrarily or based on resentment.

The justice system is based on evidence and law, not religious dictates. The court cautioned religious leaders against making “prophetic” predictions about pending court cases.