The UK’s charity regulator has ended its inquiry into a bitter leadership dispute at Sentebale, the African youth charity co-founded by Prince Harry, concluding that while no bullying took place, the organisation’s internal structures need urgent repair.
The Charity Commission said its investigation found no credible evidence to support allegations that the Duke of Sussex harassed or intimidated the charity’s chair, Sophie Chandauka. However, it criticised the way personal and strategic disagreements were allowed to escalate into a public fight, warning that the fallout had tarnished the organisation’s image and distracted from its mission.
A Clash at the Top
The dispute erupted earlier this year when Chandauka refused a call from trustees to step down—prompting Harry and co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho to resign from their roles. The departures came after weeks of tension, including Chandauka’s objections to a Netflix film crew’s presence at a fundraising polo match and an unscheduled appearance by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex at the same event.
Speaking at the time, Harry described the episode as “heartbreaking,” saying false claims had hurt those dedicated to the cause. Chandauka countered by accusing him of trying to force her out through undue pressure.
Regulator’s Findings
While clearing Harry of misconduct, the Commission identified unclear lines of authority and administrative weaknesses within Sentebale’s governance. It has issued a formal improvement plan designed to prevent future disputes and ensure decision-making responsibilities are properly defined.
David Holdsworth, the Commission’s chief executive, said the charity must now focus on rebuilding trust and delivering for the young people it serves.
Legacy and Mission
Founded in 2006 to support children and young people affected by HIV/AIDS in Lesotho—later expanding to Botswana—Sentebale takes its name from the Sesotho phrase meaning “forget me not”, a tribute to Princess Diana.
The row marks one of the most high-profile challenges to Harry’s charitable work since stepping back from royal duties in 2020, underscoring how reputational risks can grow when leadership disputes escape the boardroom.
If you want, I can also give you a third rewrite where the focus is less on Harry and more on the regulator and governance failures, making it read like an institutional oversight piece rather than a royal news story. That would make it even further removed in tone.
