Former Sunday Mail Editor Edmund Kudzayi has accused Westprop Holdings owner Ken Sharpe of abusing the law as their messy fallout continues to unfold.
Below we reproduce Kudzayi’s entire write-up against Sharpe in which he accuses the property mogul of weaponising the law among many legal infractions.
By Edmund Kudzayi
Two Stories, One Payment: A Blatant Legal Contradiction in Zimbabwe’s High Court
Today at 1430 hours, before Honourable Justice Dembure J, Kenneth Sharpe’s legal team appeared in the High Court seeking an interdict to prevent me from reporting on his corruption.
This follows a pattern of contradictory legal manoeuvres that expose a brazen abuse of Zimbabwe’s legal system.
Kenneth Sharpe’s legal team—Scanlen & Holderness—has filed a High Court application that directly contradicts a police complaint made by the same client, over the same payment, within the same timeframe.
This is not just a procedural inconsistency; it is a brazen abuse of the legal system, where a single event is simultaneously framed as both a criminal act of extortion and a voluntary legal settlement.
These two incompatible versions have collided in the High Court of Zimbabwe, demonstrating how far a powerful litigant will go when he believes money can bend the law.
(1) The US$24,344 Payment—Factual Background
From 2022 through early 2023, I performed significant professional work for Mr. Ken Sharpe.
He owes me far more than US$24,344. This partial figure was eventually paid to me in March 2024—not as hush money, but as part of settling his overdue account.
The audio recordings, messages, and invoices I have published confirm: Mr. Sharpe was long in arrears before offering the US$24,344.
The sum was a fraction of what he actually owed.
At no point did I demand that he pay me to withhold a story or remain silent.
Nevertheless, Sharpe has now advanced two starkly different legal narratives around this one payment—one to law enforcement, another to the High Court.
(2) Sharpe’s Police Version:
“Extortion” First, through his representative Michael Kudakwashe Chideme, Mr. Sharpe went to the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) Commercial Crimes Division, insisting he was a victim of a criminal conspiracy.
This complaint, which appears in Form 242, alleges that: “Acting upon that threat, complainant paid Edmund Kudzayi the demanded amount of USD 24,344 which was paid to Kukurigo Communications and receipted by Edmund Kudzayi.
“Key Points from the Police Filing Timing: The police report says Sharpe was forced to pay the US$24,344 in June 2024—a date at odds with the one Sharpe now claims he entered the “Mutual Settlement Agreement”.
Extortion Narrative: Sharpe alleges I threatened to publish damaging material unless he complied.
Involvement of Third Parties:
The complaint attempts to draw in Mr. Nominate Chazwe, who had no role in the original business arrangement as evidenced by his absence from the agreement signatories, thereby painting a picture of a multi-person “criminal syndicate.”
Indeed, even Mr. Farayi Machamire, who, while his signature appears on the document, had nothing to do with the affair, has been dragged into the matter merely on account of him having represented my interests at the time.
This was clearly laid out as a criminal matter—an allegation of extortion that carries severe penalties if proved.
Sharpe effectively asked the police to treat me (and others) as criminals.
(3) Sharpe’s High Court Version:
“A Mutual Settlement Agreement”
Within days of filing that police complaint, Mr. Sharpe pivoted completely in the High Court.
Represented by Scanlen & Holderness, he submitted sworn affidavits claiming the exact same US$24,344 was a voluntary, lawful “Mutual Settlement Agreement” from March 2024:
“In March 2024, the Second Applicant entered into a Mutual Settlement Agreement with the Respondents.
Under this agreement, the Second Applicant paid the Respondents US$24,344 in return for their commitment to refraining from publishing or disseminating any defamatory or derogatory information about the Applicants.
“Key Points from the High Court Filings Shifting Date:
Now the event is placed in March 2024—well before the “June extortion” date cited in the police report.
Consent & Legitimacy:
Sharpe insists it was a friendly, negotiated arrangement —no threat or duress.
Seeking an Interdict: Sharpe wants the High Court to enforce the alleged “agreement” and bar me from further publications.
This is legally irreconcilable with the police narrative: if the June 2024 payment was forced by extortion, it cannot also be a mutual settlement from March 2024.
It is worth noting that the very suggestion that I would possess kompromat on a businessman who, based on the evidence, appears to have stolen land worth hundreds of millions—and that I would accept a mere US$24,000 in exchange for my silence—is patently absurd.
(4) Why the Contradiction Matters.
The Same Payment Cannot Be Both Criminal & Civilly Enforceable Police Version:
A crime occurred; the payment was extracted by threat.
Evidence suggests Sharpe told officers he was coerced into handing over the money in June 2024. High Court Version:
A legitimate contract existed; the payment was freely offered in March 2024.
Sharpe demands the Court treat it as a valid settlement agreement and grant an interdict.
If the police version is correct, no court would recognise an “agreement” concluded through extortion.
Conversely, if the High Court version is correct, the police complaint is a fabricated charge—an attempt to weaponise the criminal justice system for leverage.B.
Abuse of Process & Potential Perjury
One cannot lawfully present contradictory sworn statements about the same facts in different forums.
Mr. Sharpe either lied to the police about “extortion” or is lying to the High Court about an “amicable settlement.”
Scanlen & Holderness—as his legal counsel—cannot feign ignorance.
They helped draft the settlement, and they know Sharpe filed a contradictory police document just days prior this current action.
C. Irrelevant Dragnet of Third Parties
Mr Sharpe’s attempt to drag third parties into our dispute—one rooted in his deception regarding his ties to Ignatius Chombo—reveals his callous disregard for others.
He has no qualms about harming innocent individuals if it serves his interests, as demonstrated by his entanglement of Mr Nominate Chazwe and Mr Farayi Machamire.
They have nothing to do with our dispute.
This is not the first time he has employed such tactics.
An elderly, innocent man, Roy Nyabvure, is currently before the courts, ensnared by Mr Sharp in a similar scheme.
I will soon publish the details of the unfortunate circumstances that led to his imprisonment, followed by his hospitalisation under heavy guard, watched over by AK-47-wielding officers—despite having committed no crime.
This is just one instance in a broader pattern of misconduct by Mr Sharpe in Zimbabwe.
It is time for him to be held accountable, and I fully intend to see that happen, regardless of the outcome of his bogus High Court application.
(5) The Settlement Was Never Valid
Even setting aside Mr Sharpe’s contradictory claims, the so-called “Mutual Settlement Agreement” was never legally enforceable:
Partial Payment for Past Work:
Audio recordings (publicly released) confirm Mr Sharpe owed me for extensive services rendered from 2022 onward.
He merely agreed to pay US$24,344—an amount that still leaves a considerable balance unpaid.
Duress & No Consideration:
Mr Sharpe refused to release any funds unless I signed an agreement that presumably barred me from reporting on him.
That alone vitiates any pretence of free consent.
Refund Demand:
In his lawyer’s cease-and-desist letter (dated 30 January 2025), Mr Sharpe demanded the refund of US$24,344 if I continued publishing.
Extortionists do not ordinarily issue refunds.
Thus, the “agreement” was illusory.
It did not convert Mr Sharpe’s debt to a hush money scheme, nor did it alter my right to speak on matters of public interest.
(6) The Role of Scanlen & Holderness
Despite knowing Sharpe lodged a police complaint for extortion, Scanlen & Holderness has advanced a completely conflicting narrative in the High Court.
This raises ethical red flags:
They drafted or endorsed claims that stand at direct odds with Mr Sharpe’s earlier statements to law enforcement.
They must be aware that no sum can be both “criminally extorted” and “freely agreed” in the same breath.
Their continued representation under these conditions suggests they have prioritised Mr Sharpe’s ability to pay over the consistency or truth of his legal positions.
Such conduct undermines confidence in Zimbabwe’s legal profession, calling for scrutiny from the Law Society of Zimbabwe.
(6) Conclusion: A Shameless Weaponisation of the Legal System
Step 1: Mr Sharpe files a criminal complaint, labeling the US$24,344 “extortion.”
2: When that posture proves inadequate, he pivots to the High Court, insisting the exact same sum was a fully voluntary settlement.
Step 3: He aims to silence me with an interdict, brandishing a contradictory “agreement” as though it were never the subject of a criminal allegation.
No matter which version Mr Sharpe promotes, the mismatch is indefensible.
A single payment cannot serve as the basis for both a criminal offence and a legitimate civil agreement—especially under oath in two separate legal settings.
This is not a “technicality” or harmless error; it is a deliberate deception orchestrated to exploit the courts and law enforcement for private gain.
If one businessman can manipulate the system so openly, so shamelessly—charging extortion in one breath and proclaiming mutual consent in the next—no Zimbabwean citizen is safe from similar misuse of institutional power.
The facts speak for themselves:
Ken Sharpe has run two irreconcilable stories for the same sum of money, and Scanlen & Holderness have facilitated this blatant contradiction.
In short, the entire matter stands as a testament to how easily justice can be twisted when influence, money, and a lack of accountability converge.
Let this serve as both a record and a warning.
Edmund Kudzayi, Investigative Journalist
