By Staff Correspondent

Renowned Land Developer, George Katsimberis has become the first individual to legally challenge the tripartite Deed of Settlement that exempted  Kenneth Raydon Sharpe from prosecution. The Deed of Settlement in question, is a secret agreement that was  crafted with the blessing of Local Government Minister July Moyo, a move that culminated in the grabbing of countless hectares of land with the assistance of City of Harare.

A High Court Challenge recently filed by Katsimberis revealed that Kenneth Raydon Sharpe is answerable to a number of land corruption cases but has over the years remain untouched due to the Deed of Settlement that stood as his protective shield.

Katsimberis argues that the move has been inconsistent with the National Constitution as the Minister acted outside his parameters in granting Sharpe immunity from prosecution.

Katsimberis has genuine interests in the Deed of Settlement as he noted it’s great involvement in some of the development projects that he is involved in. Moreover, at some point Katsimberis reported a case of fraud against Sharpe in which prosecution failed to materialise, signalling immunity from prosecution.

Local Government Minister July Moyo, the Chief Architect of the controversial Deed of Settlement

The following is an extra from High Court Challenge filed by Katsimberis

“It is common cause that despite the clear existence of fraud committed by the third and fifth  respondents, perhaps with other person(s), the first respondent has not charged anyone with said fraud, and I have always wondered why this was the case until I got gifted with the tripartite deed of settlement and other papers in my own prosecution, where I noticed that at paragraph 6.7 of the same, the development project I am involved in is mentioned as one of the properties belonging to third respondent.

“Now, the failure to prosecute the case of fraud reported by me against fifth respondent and Kenneth Sharpe makes sense as it is covered by the immunity conferred by the agreement.”

“To the extent that second respondent purported to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to the persons named in Annexure “B”, as their present and future associates, he acted outside his powers and in a manner that was inconsistent with his duties and showed favour to the people whose criminal prosecution he effectively caused to be withdrawn or not initiated, and in violation of section 174 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act; and “to the extent that first respondent acquiesced with the immunity granted in Annexure “B” he acted ultra vires the powers that are given to him in the constitution and potentially in violation of section 174 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

“It is clear from the foregoing that the first respondent has disowned the prosecution of the crimes committed against myself precisely because of Annexure B, which the first respondent must believe binds him.

“There is no other explanation for why his officers are going out of their way to perjure themselves and to disown (the Special Anti-Corruption Unit) SACU in the manner that they have, if not to try and show the first respondent that they have nothing to do with the prosecutions being carried out by SACU and referred to in Annexure “A”

“It also explains the close cooperation that exists between the first respondent’s prosecutors at Rotten Row where I am being prosecuted for fraud with fourth respondent and associates of the third respondent and the refusal to furnish me with any further documents in the matter.

“Above all, it explains why the first respondent is carrying on with prosecuting me and disowning three prosecutions of the third respondent and its affiliates by SACU. Despite documents exposing illegal activities by the respondents, the law has been applied in a discriminatory manner,” he added in the application.