Samson Anyenini explains why Agraadaa committed a second-degree felony

Private legal practitioner, Samson Lardy Anyenini, has strongly criticised the reduction of evangelist Nana Agradaa’s prison sentence from 15 years to one year, describing the decision as legally unsound and socially dangerous.

Speaking on Newsfile on Saturday, 7th February 2026, Anyenini argued that Agradaa’s conduct amounted to a second-degree felony and not a minor offence that could justify such a drastic reduction in punishment. He stressed that the nature and scale of the crime demanded a sentence that reflected its seriousness.

According to Anyenini, Agradaa was “not a mosquito,” emphasising that her actions caused far-reaching harm rather than negligible damage. He described her conduct as organised, faith-based fraud, deliberately designed to prey on vulnerable individuals who were seeking spiritual and financial relief.

He noted that such acts are predatory, exploiting belief systems and religious trust, and leaving victims emotionally, spiritually, and financially damaged.

“Beyond individual victims, the offence inflicts serious social harm, eroding public trust and normalising exploitation under the guise of religion,” he argued.

Anyenini warned that the ruling risks turning the law into a shield for wrongdoing rather than a deterrent, sending a dangerous message to society. In his view, the decision could embolden other self-styled spiritual leaders and charlatans to continue fraudulent practices, confident that the legal consequences would be minimal.

“This ruling will empower these charlatans to persist in their fraudulent activities,” he cautioned, adding that it weakens the state’s ability to combat organised religious scams.

The Newsfile host further described the judgment as fundamentally flawed and called on the Attorney-General to take urgent steps to address the matter. He argued that allowing the ruling to stand without challenge would undermine public confidence in the justice system and fail to protect vulnerable citizens.

Describing the sentence reduction as a “sledgehammer ruling” with far-reaching implications, Anyenini insisted that the decision must be re-examined to preserve the integrity of the law and ensure that organised fraud, especially when cloaked in religion, is punished in a manner proportionate to its gravity.