Agradaa
Let us begin where the High Court judge himself began.
He made three points that deserve to be stated plainly and without qualification:
- The conviction was right.
- The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The trial was fair. There was no bias, intimidation, or violation of Article 19.
On culpability, procedure, and constitutional fairness, the trial court was completely vindicated.
In other words, it was a careful criminal trial that resulted in lawful convictions on three counts.
The disagreement arises only at sentencing where the appellate judge characterised the 15-year sentence as “killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer.”
GOGO disagrees with that characterization.
- Preference is not the Proper Appelate Standard
The problem with the appellate reasoning is not that the judge reduced the sentence, but the standard he applied in doing so.
The question on appeal is not what sentence the appellate court would have imposed.
The question is whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was substantively unreasonable. That is, whether it fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes given the nature of the offence and the offender.
The appellate judgment does not demonstrate that the trial court relied on impermissible factors, ignored mandatory sentencing considerations, misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines, or exercised discretion arbitrarily under Article 296.
At most, the appellate judge reweighed permissible factors and reached a different sense of proportionality. That is preference substitution, not a finding of substantive unreasonableness.
Disagreement is not illegality.
- Why Agradaa Was Not a “Mosquito”
Reducing this case to the arithmetic of GH¢1,000 trivialises the crime and misunderstands its nature.
This was not petty theft. It was organised, faith-based fraud, carried out deliberately and repeatedly.
Let us recall what Agradaa did:
- Fraud Disguised as Faith: She promised to distribute ₵300,000 at an all-night church service, deliberately targeting the poor and desperate, then used the event to extract money under false pretenses.
- Charlatanic Advertising on TV and Social Media: She ran flashy promotions on Today’s TV and online platforms, displaying bundles of cash and promising rent and business support.
- Money Collected, Promises Broken: Congregants were grouped and induced to pay ₵500–₵1,000 in exchange for supposed “multiplication.” Only insiders received anything.
- Lights Off, Cameras Off, Then Chaos: Collections allegedly occurred with lights and cameras off. When congregants demanded their money back, thugs were reportedly called in.
- Three Criminal Convictions: Two counts of defrauding by false pretence and one count of charlatanic advertising.
- Repeat Offender, No Remorse: She had a prior conviction in 2021 for similar conduct. The trial court expressly noted recidivism, lack of remorse, and professional orchestration.
- Systemic Harm, Not Small Loss
The true harm lies not in the amount taken, but in the erosion of trust, the exploitation of faith, and the normalisation of religious scams.
This is not a mosquito. It is a termite in the foundations of social trust.
- Deterrence Was Lawful and Necessary
Sentencing is not a spreadsheet exercise. It turns on how the crime was committed, who committed it, who was targeted, and the broader social harm.
The Sentencing Guidelines expressly allow courts to weigh prevalence, abuse of trust, victim vulnerability, lack of remorse, and prior offending.
The trial judge did exactly that.
A pastor who weaponises religion to defraud vulnerable followers is precisely the kind of offender for whom deterrent sentencing is justified.
- Takeaway without Tears
(i) The appellate judge was right to affirm the conviction and the fairness of the trial.
(ii) He did not demonstrate that the trial court violated the Sentencing Guidelines.
(iii) He did not show that the sentence lacked substantive reasonableness.
(iv) The “mosquito and sledgehammer” metaphor understates the gravity of organized, repeat, faith-based fraud.
One may debate proportionality. But let us not rewrite the crime as small simply because the cash figure was modest.
Fraud wearing a cassock is not small fraud.
PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.
Da Yie!
Source: Kwaku Azar