By ZimEye Investigations Desk | Comment
Zimbabwean women from Bulawayo, South Africa, Zambia, United Kingdom, USA, Australia, South Africa, and Canada have joined forces in response to a WhatsApp statement by Sithule Tshuma, founder of Qoki Zindlovukazi, issued on June 27. Her post titled “Douglasdale 1 & 3 – Where Do We Truly Stand?” has now sparked a coordinated rebuttal from affected investors — calling it “distorted, misleading, and a disgraceful attempt at deflecting responsibility.”
What started in 2020 as ”seemingly’ ” a women’s empowerment project has now unfolded into what victims describe as a deliberate act of financial misrepresentation, with growing legal scrutiny across various jurisdictions.
🧾 “The Trust Was Broken – This Is Not Empowerment, It’s Exploitation”
Women investors say the issue has never been about the physical existence of land. The core problem remains the lack of legal ownership, missing title deeds, and no protective contracts linking their payments to the land parcels they purchased and were promised by Sithule Tshuma.
As a vocal investor writes:
“You gave us the impression it was Qoki the vehicle. In reality, you used your personal company. That’s misrepresentation. Why didn’t you tell us from the beginning that this was a private, for-profit enterprise?”
Investors now feel betrayed — not just by the financial outcome, but by the trust they placed in a fellow Zimbabwean woman who claimed to be building generational wealth for Matebeleland women.
📜 LEGAL PERSPECTIVE: Breaches of Contract, Fiduciary Duty, and UK Financial Conduct
Based on documentation, legal experts identify the following serious concerns:
1. Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract (UK & Zimbabwe)
Many investors were never told that the land would be owned under Sithule Tshuma’s personal or business entity, rather than held in cooperative trust. This violates:
- UK Misrepresentation Act 1967 – particularly where material facts were withheld during the formation of agreement
- Basic contractual law in Zimbabwe, where verbal and informal agreements still constitute a binding relationship in property transactions
Investors had no legal recourse, no signed agreements confirming ownership, and no documentation disclosing the true nature of the investment vehicle.
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Sithule Tshuma positioned herself as a community leader and organiser in a role of trust. By doing so, she assumed fiduciary responsibilities, whether formalised or not.
In fiduciary law:
“Anyone who controls the assets of others or acts on their behalf with expectation of benefit has a legal duty to act in good faith, disclose conflicts of interest, and avoid self-dealing.”
Yet, Sithule:
- Collected funds from individuals
- Purchased land under her own company
- Maintained sole control of titles and negotiations
- Shifted refund terms without agreement
This is consistent with breach of fiduciary duty.
3. Abuse of Professional Position (UK)
As a registered nurse with the NMC, Tshuma is bound by the NMC Code of Conduct, which includes:
- “Uphold the reputation of your profession at all times”
- “Act with honesty and integrity”
- “Declare any conflicts of interest”
Her use of her professional credibility to gain trust in a separate, undocumented business enterprise is a violation of NMC standards — and multiple complaints have been filed.
4. Unregulated Financial Activity
The financial transactions — all conducted in the UK — were substantial. With no license to provide investment services or act as a fund manager or agent, Sithule’s activities may fall under:
- UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
- Anti-Money Laundering regulations since funds were pooled and not reported appropriately
These laws prohibit individuals from collecting investment funds from the public without registration or compliance processes. Sithule Tshuma was not registered or licensed to perform such investments.
🔁 Shifting Narratives: From Refunds to Developers
Victims say Sithule Tshuma originally promised full refunds for those who wanted out — and several women did receive theirs. However, once the scale grew, she changed the terms:
- Then told women to “find your own buyers”
- Now claims developers will resell land and issue refunds
All of this is being done without signed agreements, without consent, and with no guarantee of delivery — and the land remains legally under her name or that of her business.
🗣️ Community Voices: “We Were Sent to the Lawyers. So We Went.”
In her statement, Sithule accuses the women of attacking her instead of “working together.” But victims say they were left no choice.
“She told us on live video with Zenzele Ndebele that she wouldn’t deal with us and to go to the lawyers,” say victims. “Now she wants to pretend she was trying to resolve it? She insulted the elders who tried to mediate on a Bulawayo Revival platform and blocked all of us from speaking out.”
💰 What About the Land Value Today?
The Douglasdale women paid between $8,000 to $15,000 USD as early as 2020. Since then, land in Douglasdale has appreciated significantly. Yet Sithule continues referring to outdated refund figures, with no updated valuations, no financial audits, and no discussion of accrued land equity.
🧨 Women Demand Justice – Loud and Clear
The investors continue to demand:
✅ Immediate adjusted-value refunds
✅ Legal exit options, not silence or bullying
✅ The right to independently develop or sell their land
✅ A full audit of financial activity and legal ownership
✅ Final outcomes of investigations by the NMC, ZACC, ZRP, UK Action Fraud, and the Law Society of Zimbabwe
⚠️ Final Word: “This Was Not Empowerment — It Was Exploitation in a Headwrap.”
Douglasdale women say they are no longer afraid to speak.
“This was never empowerment,” said one victim. “It was exploitation, dressed up in culture and community. And it stops now.”
—
📢 If you’ve been affected or have documentation:
📧 Email or call ZimEye
This is an ongoing investigation. ZimEye will continue to expose any Qoki Sithule fraudulent scandals.