By Own Correspondent— What initially appeared as a beacon of hope and empowerment has become a tangle of controversy and deception surrounding the UK-based women’s supposedly charity empowerment group “Qoki.”
Shockwaves reverberate through the organization as allegations of manipulation, embezzlement, and underhanded tactics cast a further dark shadow over its reputation.
At the heart of this unfolding scandal is Sithule Tshuma, the seeming alluring yet now allegedly ruthless director of Qoki, accused of orchestrating a series of devious plans.
Sithule Tshuma’s façade of benevolence belies a much darker reality.
Murmurs circulating within Bulawayo, Manchester, and the diaspora communities have shed light on her purported bullying tendencies and the manipulation of investors through threats and intimidation.
Reports suggest that the Mental Health Staff Nurse, Tshuma’s grip over Qoki’s operations extended far and wide, allowing her to allegedly manipulate Qoki trading platforms, expel dissenting investors, and cloak dubious activities from public scrutiny.
Under the guise of philanthropy, the true motives behind Qoki have been cast in doubt.
Allegations of embezzlement continue to surface against three Qoki Directors, closely connected to Sithule and originating from Bulawayo: Bridget Dube, Karen Kumalo, and Nompilo Moyo.
They stand accused of masterminding a deceitful scheme involving the sale of land at inflated prices and manipulating agreements for sale through falsified figures.
The fallout from this alleged fraud has left unsuspecting investors reeling, facing substantial financial losses of up to $180,000 in the Douglasdale 4 project and approximately $700,000 in the Airport Road venture (more other projects have similar issues).
The exposé’s primary objective is to highlight these individuals’ deceptive practices and advocate for justice to prevail.
Moreover, a previous incident in Nondwene 1, dating back to 2021, raises concerns.
Ms Tshuma reportedly demanded funds for road construction on a land parcel entangled in ownership disputes, yet investors still need to be funded.
The funds at the centre of these allegations were originally designated for diverse development ventures, spanning plots, hotels, golf courses, farms, garages, banks, markets, and a logistics company.
In the case of Douglasdale 4, the evidence points to unsuspecting investors entering an agreement with Tshuma and Qoki to purchase a piece of land for $700,000.
A thorough investigation later revealed that the actual value of the land, as evidenced by receipts, was only $520,000. This discrepancy highlights an overpayment of an astonishing $180,000 due to alleged coercion.
Taking their deception a step further, the accused parties are said to have manipulated the agreement for sale by falsifying figures to rationalize the higher purchase price.
In an unexpected twist, the legitimate land seller, who did not know about the scam, emerged with compelling evidence that substantiated the actual value of the land and confirmed the alleged deceitful practices perpetrated by Sithule Tshuma and Qoki.
The rightful seller promptly presented genuine receipts and verified payment dates, providing unequivocal evidence that the land’s true market value stood at $520,000, with payments made in varying instalments as opposed to the presented narrative.
Supplementary documents have come to light, exposing discrepancies within the sales agreement and lending credence to the accusations of fraudulent manipulation. When probed about these discrepancies, Ms Tshuma disclosed to investors that she had manipulated the figures in order to evade excessive Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) taxes.
Nonetheless, her explanation is met with scepticism, as investors had already remitted conveyancing fees based on the altered figures ($700,000). This discrepancy raises suspicions about the underlying motives driving the alleged deception. An emerging pattern of embezzlement and underhanded tactics linked to Sithule Tshuma is beginning to take shape, as she was reportedly overheard saying, “I had to do what I had to do…., and…. I had to pay $4000 in bribe money for every development permit with the Zimbabwe Spatial Land Ministry.” These claims further contribute to the mounting concerns surrounding her actions.
The allegations against the quartet extend beyond fund misappropriation. Allegations suggest that Sithule, alongside her legal representative, Mr Zibusiso Charles Ncube, engaged in schemes to inflate land prices artificially, evade ZMRA tax payments, issue incomplete contracts, reserve prime land for the quartet, and produce fraudulent title deeds. The involvement of Mr Ncube in the sale of gazetted land has intensified concerns, adding layers of complexity to the unfolding scandal.
Investors who once placed their trust and resources in Qoki and Mr Ncube now grapple with the aftermath. Pleas for refunds were reportedly ignored, as the quartet’s leadership allegedly remained unresponsive to concerns. Disgruntled investors initiated legal action, exacerbating the organization’s tarnished reputation.
Amidst the legal battles and shattered dreams, a glimmer of hope emerges.
A coalition of investors, united by their pursuit of justice, has risen to challenge the alleged wrongdoings of Sithule Tshuma and her quartet of associates.
This unified effort seeks to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.
The case underscores the importance of protecting individuals from unscrupulous schemes, particularly when influential figures exploit their positions for personal gain. The fight against fraud and corruption demands the collective effort of society to ensure accountability and safeguard the innocent.
The saga of Qoki serves as a poignant reminder that transparency and ethical conduct remain paramount in philanthropy and business.
As the wheels of justice begin to turn, the future of Qoki, its directors, and the individuals impacted by the alleged fraudulent practices hangs in the balance.
The story of Qoki stands as a cautionary tale, reminding us that deceit and manipulation can only remain concealed for a limited time before accountability prevails.