Governance failures at Prince Harry’s Charity

Charity governance matters because charities matter. Charities are not tangential to society, they are a vital expression of our most important human values and play an essential role in some of society’s most important tasks including the alleviation of poverty, education and healthcare.

Charity governance, however, is far from straightforward. Charities operate on goodwill from donors, volunteers and trustees but goodwill alone is never enough. Managing a charity requires as much care as operating a commercial enterprise. Whilst most of the people involved in charity governance are part-time, a charity requires and deserves the same level of professionalism as any other organisation.

Charity governance rarely makes the front pages but the Sentebale story (see our previous blog here) has provided us with fascinating drama. Never before have we seen a prominent charity conduct a dispute in public with a member of the royal family. The story also introduced the concept of “misogynoir” into wider public discourse.

What did the Charity Commission conclude?

Earlier this week the Charity Commission published its conclusions from its investigation into Sentebale. With these conclusions, the Commission hoped to conclude the crisis which broke into the newspapers in March.

The Charity Commission’s conclusion of its compliance case will disappoint many on both sides of the argument.

Although the Charity Commission has tried hard to be even handed in its criticism, it is formal sanctions which really count. Formal sanctions available to the Charity Commission (under the Charities Act 2011) include: issuing a formal warning, removing a trustee, disqualifying an individual from serving as a trustee, and the “nuclear option” of dissolving a charity. The Charities Commission also has a range of powers (known as “Section 84 powers”) to direct a charity to take specific actions to improve a charity's operations or protect its assets.

It’s very significant that not one of these sanctions has been applied in this case, which (aside from the criticism) means that the board of Sentebale are justified in claiming victory.

The Commission found a number of governance failings:

“The Commission has identified a lack of clarity around role descriptions and internal policies as the primary cause for weaknesses in the charity’s management.”

“The failure to clarify delegations within the charity to the chair, and the failure to have proper processes for internal complaints, both amount to mismanagement in the administration of the charity.”

The Commission has concluded that “mismanagement” did occur, and that the appropriate remedy for this is to issue Sentebale with a “Regulatory Action Plan” (which has not been published).

However, and most crucially, the Commission has endorsed the current board of trustees, including the new trustees which Sophie Chandauka appointed, following the resignation of all other trustees in March.

“The charity currently has validly appointed trustees in place to take the charity forward. The Commission has issued a Regulatory Action Plan setting out steps the current trustees need to take, including to implement an internal dispute policy, improve the charity’s complaints and whistleblowing procedures, and establish clearer processes for delegating authority on behalf of the charity. The Regulatory Action Plan also sets out the importance of the trustees securing sufficient funding to enable the charity to deliver for its beneficiaries.” 

What the Commission didn’t find is perhaps more important that what they did find. The Charity Commission found no evidence of "widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir at the charity" and no evidence of "over-reach" by either Sophie Chandauka or Prince Harry.

However, legal position and public reputation are two very different things and Prince Harry’s involvement has a polarising effect for journalists. Whilst, in charity law, the Commission’s report may represent a victory for Sophie Chandauka and the board of Sentebale, the report includes enough critical material relating to Sentebale for his supporters to claim a tie or even a victory for Prince Harry, and this is precisely what has happened as different news outlets have taken contrary angles on this outcome:

·       'All sides' to blame in Prince Harry charity row, watchdog finds (BBC)

·       Prince Harry reprimanded for crisis at charity (Telegraph)

·       Prince Harry Cleared of Bullying Accusations at Charity He Co-founded (New York Times)

In response to the Commission’s findings, CGIUKI Chief Executive Sara Drake commented:

“This case highlights the critical importance of strong governance in maintaining public trust, especially in high-profile charities. Clear roles, respectful dialogue, and well-functioning mechanisms for resolving disputes are essential to ensuring that a charity’s mission remains front and centre. When internal issues spill into the public domain, the greatest risk is to the beneficiaries who rely on the organisation’s work.”

Crisis reveals character, and the Sentebale crisis showed that the two principal antagonists were both perhaps rather thin-skinned. It shouldn’t be a surprise to discover that many leaders have substantial egos; but what boards (and royal advisers) need to be able to do is to restrain the element of ego and exercise careful control over public comments. Given the statements (direct or indirect) from both sides since the Commission’s conclusions were published, this may remain a weakness for both parties.

Any governance professional reading this sorry story will rightly identify that the principal failings of the board all relate to governance and that the presence of a qualified governance professional on the board could have saved the charity from a great deal of grief, expense and public embarrassment.

It is already clear from recent public statements that a mere technical victory may not be enough for Sophie Chandauka. If she wants a full public vindication, then this is something that no lawyer and no journalist can deliver. The Charity Commission has attempted to conclude this matter and we can only hope that the trustees of Sentebale read the statement carefully and conclude that letting the other side have the last word is the only way to bring this matter to a close.

Ultimately, a charity does not exist to serve trustees or staff, but to deliver benefits to those who need its services. If the beneficiaries of Sentebale had been prioritised by all sides all along, it’s hard to imagine that this governance crisis would have descended into the public spat for which this charity is now famous.

Strengthen your Board’s governance today

The Sentebale case is a stark reminder that even high-profile charities are vulnerable to governance missteps. Don’t wait for a crisis to expose weaknesses in your organisation’s leadership. Equip your trustees with the tools they need to lead confidently, resolve disputes effectively, and uphold public trust.

Join our Essential Charity Governance one-day course for a deep dive into the principles that underpin successful boards. Whether you're a seasoned trustee or new to the role, this training will sharpen your understanding and elevate your impact.