The ongoing legal battle between Evangelist Patricia Asiamah, widely recognized as Agradaa, and gospel musician Empress Gifty, has taken a new turn. Agradaa, the General Overseer of Heaven Way Chapel, is facing a GH¢20 million defamation lawsuit filed by Empress Gifty at the Tema High Court. The crux of the lawsuit revolves around alleged defamatory statements made by Agradaa against Empress Gifty and her husband, igniting a public feud primarily played out on social media. The recent court proceedings scheduled for June 11, 2025, were marked by the absence of Agradaa’s legal counsel, a situation which has further fueled the ongoing public debate surrounding the case. Agradaa, in response to media reports, promptly offered her version of events, asserting procedural flaws in the service of legal documents as the reason for her lawyer’s non-appearance.
Agradaa’s defense centers around the claim that her legal team was not given adequate notice of the court date. She alleges that Empress Gifty’s lawyer failed to adhere to the stipulated legal timeframe for serving court documents, which requires a seven-day notice period prior to the hearing. Instead, Agradaa contends, the documents were delivered to the bailiff just one day before the scheduled court appearance. This short-notice delivery, she argues, constituted improper legal procedure and was the primary reason her lawyer could not attend the proceedings. Agradaa’s public statement, disseminated through a video on social media, directly counters the narrative presented by Empress Gifty’s legal representative, who attributed the adjournment to the absence of Agradaa’s counsel.
Empress Gifty’s lawyer’s account of the proceedings indicates that the court was unable to proceed with a motion for an interlocutory injunction due to the absence of Agradaa’s legal representation. He further revealed that Agradaa’s lawyer had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that while his client’s statements might have been insulting, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. This legal maneuver further complicates the proceedings and adds another layer to the already complex relationship between the two public figures. The court’s inability to address the motion for an interlocutory injunction further delays any potential interim legal measures that Empress Gifty may have sought.
The heart of the legal dispute lies in the nature and impact of Agradaa’s public statements regarding Empress Gifty and her husband. While the specifics of these statements remain somewhat ambiguous in public reporting, the lawsuit suggests that Empress Gifty perceived them as damaging to her reputation and therefore pursued legal action. Agradaa’s defense, on the other hand, hinges on the assertion that these statements, while potentially offensive, do not constitute defamation under the law. This difference in interpretation of the law adds a crucial legal dimension to the ongoing personal conflict between the two. The court will ultimately have to decide whether Agradaa’s words meet the legal criteria for defamation.
The case has garnered significant public attention, particularly on social media platforms, reflecting the high-profile nature of both parties involved. Agradaa, a controversial religious figure, and Empress Gifty, a popular gospel musician, both command substantial followings, and their public dispute has naturally drawn considerable interest. The ongoing legal battle, played out against the backdrop of social media exchanges, has become a topic of public discussion and speculation. The case highlights the increasing role of social media in amplifying public disputes and shaping public perception.
As the legal proceedings continue, both parties are preparing for the next steps in their legal battle. The court will need to address the procedural issue of the service of documents before it can delve into the substantive arguments of the case. The question of whether Agradaa’s statements constitute defamation will be central to the court’s decision. The ongoing public attention on the case adds to the pressure on both sides to present their cases effectively. The outcome of this lawsuit will not only determine the legal responsibilities of the parties involved but could also set a precedent for future cases involving online defamation and public figures.
