The ongoing legal battle between Ghanaian gospel singer Empress Gifty Adorye, popularly known as Empress Gifty, and controversial media personality Nana Agradaa, also known as Mama Pat, has taken a significant turn. Empress Gifty filed a GH₵ 20 million defamation lawsuit against Agradaa following a series of public accusations alleging infidelity and financial impropriety. Agradaa, in an attempt to halt the proceedings, filed an application to dismiss the lawsuit, but her efforts proved unsuccessful. The Tema High Court, on June 26, 2025, ruled against Agradaa’s application, citing a lack of merit. This decision marks a crucial victory for Empress Gifty and paves the way for the defamation case to proceed to trial. The court also ordered Agradaa to pay GH₵ 6,000 in costs to Empress Gifty, adding to the legal and financial repercussions she now faces.
The core of the dispute lies in the damaging allegations leveled against Empress Gifty by Nana Agradaa. Agradaa publicly accused the gospel singer of engaging in extramarital affairs with various pastors and other men, claiming that these relationships served as a means to fund her lavish lifestyle. These accusations, widely circulated through various media platforms, tarnished Empress Gifty’s reputation and caused considerable emotional distress. Feeling that her character and career were unjustly under attack, Empress Gifty decided to pursue legal action against Agradaa, culminating in the GH₵ 20 million defamation lawsuit. The substantial sum reflects the gravity of the alleged defamation and the potential damage it inflicted on Empress Gifty’s public image and career prospects.
The court’s rejection of Agradaa’s dismissal application signifies a significant setback for her defense strategy. It indicates that the judge found sufficient grounds for the defamation case to move forward, effectively validating Empress Gifty’s claims and the seriousness of the allegations made against her. This ruling sets the stage for a full trial, where both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments supporting their respective positions. The trial will delve deeper into the nature and extent of Agradaa’s accusations, scrutinizing the veracity of her claims and the impact they had on Empress Gifty’s reputation and livelihood.
The court proceedings have unfolded against a backdrop of public scrutiny and intense media attention. Following the court’s decision on June 26, 2025, supporters of Empress Gifty gathered outside the courthouse, expressing their solidarity with the gospel singer and their disapproval of Agradaa’s actions. They reportedly jeered and hooted at Agradaa as she left the premises, demonstrating the public sentiment surrounding the case and the polarized opinions it has generated. This public display underscores the high-profile nature of the legal battle and its broader implications for the individuals involved and the Ghanaian entertainment industry.
In the aftermath of the court ruling, both parties have responded in distinct ways. Empress Gifty’s legal team has expressed confidence in their case and hinted at further legal action to ensure that justice is served. They intend to pursue the defamation suit vigorously, seeking not only financial compensation but also a public vindication of Empress Gifty’s character and reputation. On the other hand, Nana Agradaa has maintained a defiant stance despite the court’s unfavorable decision. Her continued refusal to retract her accusations suggests a determination to fight the case, even in the face of mounting legal pressure. This contrasting approach foreshadows a potentially protracted and fiercely contested legal battle.
The substantive trial, scheduled for the coming weeks, is expected to be a closely watched affair. It will provide a platform for both Empress Gifty and Nana Agradaa to present their versions of events, supported by evidence and witness testimonies. The court will then be tasked with determining the truthfulness of Agradaa’s accusations, assessing the extent of the damage caused to Empress Gifty, and ultimately deciding whether Agradaa is liable for defamation. The outcome of this trial will have significant implications for both parties, shaping their public image and potentially impacting their respective careers within the Ghanaian media landscape. The case is also likely to set a precedent for future defamation cases, influencing how similar disputes are handled within the Ghanaian legal system.
