Three prominent legal experts in Ghana have publicly criticised the decision to reduce the prison term of Nana Agradaa, arguing that the ruling could set a troubling precedent for the country’s justice system and weaken confidence in how serious fraud cases are handled. Their interventions have added weight to a growing debate over the appropriateness of the shorter sentence and what it means for future cases. (ghanaweb.com
)
Nana Agradaa, whose legal name is Patricia Asiedua Asiamah, was convicted in July 2025 on charges that included defrauding by false pretences and charlatanic advertising in relation to a widely publicised money-doubling scheme. A Circuit Court originally sentenced her to 15 years in prison with hard labour, but on appeal the Amasaman High Court upheld the conviction while reducing the prison term to one year. Many observers found the dramatic reduction surprising and have questioned its implications. (ghanaweb.com
)
Among those challenging the ruling is Professor Kwaku Azar, who has argued that drastic reduction of the sentence could weaken the deterrent effect of criminal penalties, especially in cases involving exploitation of vulnerable people. He said serious financial misconduct and deceptive practices deserve strong penalties to discourage others from engaging in similar schemes.
Another legal authority, Mr Yaw Djan, emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing, warning that court decisions which significantly alter long terms could erode public trust in the legal process. Djan pointed out that when sentences are sharply reduced without clear justification, ordinary citizens may feel the law does not apply equally to everyone.
A third expert, Mrs Akua Ofori-Atta, expressed concern that the reduction might send the wrong message to would-be offenders. She said that while legal safeguards are important, upholding robust punishments for fraudulent and harmful conduct reinforces the rule of law and protects the public.
These legal professionals also highlighted the broader importance of transparent reasoning from the judiciary so citizens can understand how decisions are reached. Their views have sparked discussion among lawyers, civil society groups and social media users about whether the legal system should appeal the reduction or adjust guidelines to ensure sentences reflect both the severity of offences and societal expectations
