Agradaa, sika gari and criminal justice
Sensational news rocked the nation sometime last week: the reduction of the sentence handed down to Patience Asiedua, popularly known as Nana Agradaa, for defrauding by false pretences and charlatanic advertisement, from 15 years to 12 months by the Amasaman High Court on appeal.
The news has polarised society. Agradaa's sympathisers were elated with the sentence reduction, underpinned by their conviction that the initial sentence was excessive.
However, there are other people, who I suspect to be in the majority, who are absolutely disgusted with the outcome of the appeal, viewing it as a reinforcement of the deeply held belief that there is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the poor and indigent members of society.
When the trial court sentenced her to 15 years, it was hailed as testimony to the oft-repeated phrase that the law is no respecter of persons and that nobody, rich and famous or poor and unknown, could get away with deceiving and defrauding hapless individuals for profit.
But the reduction of the sentence sent a jolt; what had seemed like an egalitarian victory for justice metamorphosed overnight into unequal justice where it was perceived that influence, fame and fortune had triumphed.
Sentence
Analysing the reduction of sentence, purely from a legal angle, reveals that the problem at the heart of the controversy can be laid squarely at the door of the law/statute that criminalises the offence.
In sentencing law and principles, as obtains in major jurisdictions, there are maximum and minimum sentences for different offences.
The anomaly in this case is that while the law gives a maximum sentence of 25 years, there is, regrettably, no minimum sentence.
The effect is that the judge had every right to pick any sentence from one day in prison to 25 years.
In sentencing, judges have wide discretion within the stated maximum and minimum to decide which sentence to impose, depending on several factors, including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the offence, the impact of the sentence on society, whether there are aggravating factors, whether the offender has shown genuine remorse, whether the offender is a first-time offender, etc.
In that sense, the judge cannot be faulted in giving the massive reduction, as it was clearly within the parameters of his discretion.
However, some factors transcend some of those listed above, which are equally relevant and deserving of attention.
One of these is public perception.
This matters greatly because it gives the legal system credibility, which ultimately translates into submission by citizens to the administration of justice.
When the scales of justice tilt too sharply, ordinary people begin to wonder whether the scales of justice are truly balanced or they wobble and fall under the weight of privilege.
This is because there are countless stories of cases where ordinary citizens are given severe sentences when they commit lesser crimes, like the theft of goats, cassava, chicken, etc.
What makes the Agradaa case troubling is that she used her position as an evangelist to deceive and defraud unsuspecting victims in the name of God.
In law, people who wield massive control over the minds or conduct of other persons are said to be in a position of trust.
So in such cases, if those personalities abuse that trust by leveraging their position to take advantage of their victims, the law punishes them more in comparison to ordinary persons who break the law in similar circumstances.
Whatever mitigation, personal or objective, might have been canvassed on behalf of Agradaa, in my opinion, does not justify the reduction.
The country is awash with spiritual/religious leaders who are duping and taking advantage of the poor and vulnerable by leveraging their spiritual status
Just trawl through our TV and radio channels, and you will be surprised at the sheer number of pastors, spiritualists, mallams, etc., promising heaven.
Hapless individuals sacrifice the little money they have to these crooks.
The reason why the criminal exploitation by these so-called spiritualists, ‘men of God’, persists is the innate belief in superstition of our people.
It is this acceptance of the supernatural that these charlatans exploit.
The Attorney General’s Department is urged to appeal the reduction of the sentence, if for nothing at all, to debunk the view that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
Going forward, the reset agenda should publish clear sentencing guidelines for all the major crimes, an issue that I have consistently advocated in this column.
The writer is a lawyer.
E-mail:
