PRINCE Harry was blasted last night for letting a boardroom battle damage his charity Sentebale.
A watchdog said the public row risked undermining trust in good causes generally.
2
The Charity Commission said chances were missed to settle differences at Sentebale, set up by Harry and Lesotho’s Prince Seeiso in 2006 for young people and kids living with HIV and Aids.
It launched a probe when they stood down as patrons in support of trustees who quit in a dispute with Dr Sophie Chandauka over a fundraising strategy.
Board of trustees chair Dr Chandauka said the “toxicity” of Harry’s brand since his move to live in the US had seen a drop in donors.
She accused the Duke of Sussex, 40, of involvement in a “cover-up” of a probe into bullying and harassment.
Last night, she said the “adverse media campaign” launched by those who resigned “caused incalculable damage” to the charity.
The Times reported a source close to Harry blasted the report and said the prince was “devastated the chair had been allowed to succeed with a hostile takeover”.
His spokesman said those who rely on Sentebale would bear the “consequences of her actions”.
The Charity Commission said the public airing of the row harmed Sentebale’s reputation and risked overshadowing its achievements.
The regulator, which cannot investigate individual allegations of bullying, found no evidence of systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir at the charity but acknowledged “the strong perception of ill treatment” felt by some involved.
David Holdsworth, chief executive of the Charity Commission, said: “Passion for a cause is the bedrock of volunteering and charity, delivering positive impact for millions of people here at home and abroad every day.
“However, in the rare cases when things go wrong, it is often because that very passion has become a weakness rather than a strength.
“Sentebale’s problems played out in the public eye, enabling a damaging dispute to harm the charity’s reputation, risk overshadowing its many achievements, and jeopardising the charity’s ability to deliver for the very beneficiaries it was created to serve.”
2
