Nana Agradaa and husband
Evangelist Patricia Asiedua Asiamah, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, and her husband, Angel Asiamah, have initiated legal action over what they describe as “false and damaging allegations” published on social media.
In a statement dated May 5, 2026, issued by Agyaa Asamani Law Consult, their legal representatives confirmed that a formal petition has been submitted to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to investigate those behind the claims. “The petition seeks a full investigation into the individuals involved in the publication and circulation of the false allegations,” the statement said.
The case stems from a viral video widely shared across social media platforms, including TikTok, in which a woman alleged that Agradaa’s husband Angel Asiamah pursued a romantic relationship with her while Nana Agradaa was imprisoned between July 2025 and March 2026. She claimed that he “misrepresented his marital status, impregnated her, and later neglected his parental responsibilities.”
According to the statement, the allegations have since been proven false. “In a subsequent video, the woman, together with her brother, retracted her earlier statements and apologised,” the lawyers noted.
The woman admitted that Angel Asiamah “is not the father of her child” and said she had been influenced to make the initial claims.
The legal team further accused a blogger, identified as Katizowao.fv, of playing an active role in spreading the story. “The blogger did not merely report the claims but amplified and repeated them for engagement, thereby damaging the reputations of our clients,” the statement said.
The petition argues that the publication of the claims caused “severe reputational damage, emotional distress, and public humiliation” to the couple, adding that the content had the potential to disturb public peace and create fear and alarm.
Agradaa and her husband are therefore asking the CID to investigate the matter, question the individuals involved, secure and preserve all digital evidence, and prosecute if sufficient evidence is found. The lawyers also stated that the woman’s retraction “should be treated as an admission of falsity, not a bar to prosecution.”
The CID has not yet publicly responded to the petition.