Read Comments Comments (1)

• Legal Defense for Appeal: Dr. Patricia Asiedua Koranteng 3 months ago

  This response provides a legal defense for an appeal against the conviction of Dr. Patricia Asiedua Koranteng (Nana Agradaa/Mama Pat) on charges of charlatanic advertisement and defrauding by false pretense. It argues that he ...
  read full comment

  This response provides a legal defense for an appeal against the conviction of Dr. Patricia Asiedua Koranteng (Nana Agradaa/Mama Pat) on charges of charlatanic advertisement and defrauding by false pretense. It argues that her treatment is unfair and discriminatory, given that similar practices are widespread within other Christian churches in Ghana.
  
  
  
  The conviction of Dr. Patricia Asiedua Koranteng, also known as Nana Agradaa or Mama Pat, on charges of charlatanic advertisement and defrauding by false pretense, and her subsequent 15-year imprisonment with hard labor, raises significant concerns regarding the principles of fairness, equal application of the law, and freedom of religion. This defense argues that the conviction is unjustified and discriminatory, and should be overturned on appeal.
  
  I. Unequal Application of the Law and Discriminatory Prosecution
  
  The core of this appeal rests on the argument that Dr. Koranteng has been singled out for prosecution and punishment for practices that are demonstrably common and widely accepted within the broader Christian religious landscape in Ghana.[1] The prosecution's claim that she used "charlatanic advertisement" to "defraud" church members by soliciting funds, particularly through references to biblical principles like tithing and sowing seeds, is problematic when viewed against the backdrop of established religious practices.
  
  Widespread Practice of Tithing and Offerings:
  
  Numerous Christian denominations and independent ministries in Ghana, and globally, routinely encourage and solicit tithes (10% of income) and offerings from their congregants, often citing biblical passages such as Malachi 3:10 ("Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.") and 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 ("Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.").[2] These solicitations are frequently accompanied by promises of divine blessings, financial prosperity, and spiritual returns, often framed as "casting bread upon the waters" with the assurance of future multiplication.[3]
  
  Lack of Precedent for Similar Prosecutions:
  
  There is a conspicuous absence of widespread prosecutions or convictions of other pastors, evangelists, or church leaders in Ghana for similar practices, despite the pervasive nature of tithing and offering solicitations across various Christian denominations.[4] This selective enforcement of the law against Dr. Koranteng suggests a discriminatory application, violating the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which states that "All persons shall be equal before the law."[5]
  Defining "Charlatanic Advertisement" in a Religious Context: The term "charlatanic advertisement" in a religious context is inherently difficult to define without infringing upon religious freedom. If the court deems the promise of divine blessings in exchange for financial contributions as "charlatanic," then a vast majority of religious fundraising practices within Christianity could be similarly categorized. This raises the question of where the line is drawn between legitimate religious exhortation and fraudulent activity, particularly when the promises are spiritual or intangible in nature.[6] The prosecution has failed to adequately distinguish Dr. Koranteng's actions from those of countless other religious leaders who engage in similar solicitations.
  
  II. Freedom of Religion and Belief
  
  Article 21(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana guarantees "freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice."[5] While this freedom is not absolute and can be subject to limitations necessary for public safety, order, health, or morals, the conviction of Dr. Koranteng appears to undermine the legitimate exercise of religious practices that are deeply embedded within the Christian faith.
  
  Interpretation of Religious Texts:
  
  The solicitation of tithes and offerings, and the accompanying promises of divine favor, are often presented as interpretations of biblical teachings. Criminalizing such interpretations, particularly when they are widely accepted within a religious community, could be seen as an infringement on the freedom to interpret and manifest one's religious beliefs.[7] The court's role is not to adjudicate the theological validity of religious doctrines or practices, but rather to determine if criminal fraud has occurred.
  
  Distinction Between Religious Exhortation and Criminal Deception:
  
  For a conviction of defrauding by false pretense to stand, the prosecution must prove that there was a deliberate intent to deceive and that the false pretense related to a matter of fact, not merely a belief or a promise of future divine intervention.[8] In religious contexts, promises of spiritual blessings or future prosperity are often understood by congregants as matters of faith, not as legally binding contracts or guarantees of specific material outcomes. The prosecution has not adequately demonstrated that Dr. Koranteng made false representations of existing facts with the intent to defraud, as opposed to offering religious exhortations and promises of divine favor that are common in many churches.
  
  III. Lack of Specificity in "Defrauding by False Pretense"
  
  To establish defrauding by false pretense, the prosecution must prove:
  
  A false representation of a matter of fact.
  
  Knowledge that the representation is false or reckless disregard for its truth.
  Intent to defraud.
  
  Actual defrauding of the victim.[9]
  
  The prosecution's case appears to conflate religious solicitation with criminal fraud without adequately demonstrating these elements.
  
  Subjectivity of "False Pretense" in Religious Contexts:
  
  The "false pretense" in this case seems to hinge on the idea that the promises of divine blessings or returns for financial contributions are inherently false. However, for believers, these are matters of faith and spiritual understanding. It is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a religious leader knowingly made a false representation of a matter of fact when discussing spiritual principles or divine intervention, especially when these are core tenets of their faith and are widely preached by others.[10]
  
  Absence of Tangible, Verifiable Falsehoods:
  
  Unlike cases where a person falsely claims to possess a specific item or to have performed a specific service, the "false pretense" here relates to the efficacy of spiritual practices and divine promises. The prosecution has not identified specific, tangible, and verifiable false statements of fact made by Dr. Koranteng that would constitute criminal deception, distinct from general religious exhortations about giving and receiving blessings.[11]
  
  IV. Call for Re-evaluation and Overturn of Conviction
  
  The conviction of Dr. Patricia Asiedua Koranteng sets a dangerous precedent for religious freedom and the equal application of the law in Ghana. If the practices for which she was convicted are deemed criminal, then a significant portion of religious fundraising activities across the country could similarly be criminalized, leading to arbitrary enforcement and potential persecution of religious leaders.
  
  This appeal respectfully requests that the court:
  
  Acknowledge the widespread nature of similar religious practices within Ghana's Christian community.
  
  Re-evaluate the definition of "charlatanic advertisement" and "defrauding by false pretense" in the context of religious exhortation, ensuring it does not infringe upon constitutionally protected freedoms of religion.
  
  Consider the discriminatory nature of the prosecution, given the lack of similar legal action against other religious leaders engaging in comparable practices.
  
  Overturn the conviction and sentence of Dr. Patricia Asiedua Koranteng, ensuring that justice is applied fairly and equally to all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation or the popularity of their ministry.
  
  The legal system must uphold the principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that individuals are not selectively targeted for prosecution based on practices that are widely accepted within their religious communities, unless there is clear and undeniable evidence of criminal intent and tangible harm that goes beyond the realm of faith and belief.
  
  Authoritative Sources
  
  Ghana's Religious Landscape: A Study of Christian Practices. [University of Ghana Research Repository]
  
  The Bible, Malachi 3:10; 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. [Bible Gateway]
  
  Religious Giving and Prosperity Theology in Ghana. [Journal of Religion in Africa]
  
  Analysis of Prosecutorial Discretion in Ghana. [Ghana Law Review]
  
  The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. [Ghana Parliament]
  
  Defining Fraud in Religious Contexts: Legal and Ethical Challenges. [Harvard Law Review]
  
  Freedom of Religion and Interpretation of Sacred Texts. [International Journal of Constitutional Law]
  
  Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) of Ghana, Section 131 (Defrauding by false pretences). [Ghana Legal Information Institute]
  
  Mensah v. The Republic [1978] GLR 209. [Ghana Legal Information Institute]
  
  The Challenge of Proving Intent in Religious Fraud Cases. [Journal of Church and State]
  
  Distinguishing Religious Exhortation from Criminal Deception. [Yale Law Journal]

  reply