- 23 January 2026
Reading time: 6-8 minutes
Summary: This Insight analysis examines the governance and communications issues raised by the departure of Oxfam GB's CEO and the subsequent resignation of a trustee. It explores how board decisions-making, communication sequencing and legal constraints can collide when leadership disputes become public.
Oxfam GB’s handling of the departure of its chief executive has escalated into a wider boardroom crisis, with a serving trustee resigning and calling for regulatory intervention.
In January 2026, Dr Balwant Singh resigned from the charity’s board. In media statements reported at the time, Singh said he had lost confidence in Oxfam GB’s governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. He apologised publicly to former chief executive Dr Halima Begum and described her treatment as “cruel and inhumane”. He also said that the board’s public statement following her departure did not reflect his views, directly challenging the organisation’s presentation of unity at the top.
That resignation matters because it transforms what might otherwise have been a difficult but contained leadership change into a live test of governance and communications discipline. The issue is no longer simply whether the board was entitled to remove its chief executive, but whether it handled that decision in a way that was procedurally robust, internally coherent and credible in public.
How the dispute began
The dispute stems from a decision taken in December 2025 to remove Dr Begum as chief executive. On Friday 12 December, trustees resolved that her position was untenable, citing an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence following an independent review conducted by Howlett Brown.
According to statements reported by national outlets, the review ran through November and December, drew on testimony from 32 current and former colleagues, and examined documentary evidence. Dr Begum subsequently left the organisation, and Jan Oldfield was appointed acting chief executive.
The decision entered the public domain over the weekend of 14-15 December. Initial coverage closely reflected the board’s wording and the reported scope of the review, including references to the number of testimonies and the appointment of an acting chief executive.
What is being contested
Several points remain actively disputed.
Reporting has said that around 70 staff signed a letter urging trustees to investigate leadership concerns, though some secondary commentary has implied a higher number.
Dr Begum denies the criticisms made of her, says she was forced to resign, and has indicated that she intends to pursue Employment Tribunal proceedings for constructive dismissal. Her solicitor has also said that a whistleblowing disclosure has been made to the Charity Commission. These are the former chief executive’s assertions and, as such, remain to be tested through legal and regulatory processes.
The board has said that its decision to remove Dr Begum was unanimous. However, prior to his resignation, Dr Singh publicly criticised the handling of the departure and said that the announcement did not reflect his views. He also alleged, in comments reported by the press, that damaging background briefings had taken place. Oxfam has said that Singh supported the resolution at the time it was passed.
The subsequent resignation of a Dr Singh and his call for regulatory intervention mean that this disagreement is a visible fault line in the governance narrative.
A public petition calling on the Charity Commission to investigate the treatment of Dr Begum has passed 1,000 signatures, with organisers issuing periodic updates. This is not a regulatory outcome, but it is an indicator that the story has continued traction beyond the initial headlines.
Why the narrative became difficult to control
Even where legal and HR constraints limit what can be disclosed, sequencing matters.
Much of the early media coverage referenced reported elements of a confidential review that has not been published, rather than a single, comprehensive statement setting out process, decision-making and next steps in one place. That combination created an information asymmetry: enough detail to drive headlines, but insufficient clarity to close down alternative interpretations once dissenting voices emerged and the former chief executive’s legal position entered the public domain.
From a communications perspective, once contradictory accounts surface, trust and reputational recovery become harder.
Why the stakes are particularly high for Oxfam
Scale and context amplify the impact.
Oxfam International describes itself as a confederation of 21 member organisations operating in 81 countries, employing around 8,500 people across the network. Oxfam GB says it runs more than 500 shops in the UK and reported that its work reached almost 11 million people in 2023–24. Any leadership transition therefore has implications not only for staff and trustees, but for supporters, partners and beneficiaries at scale.
This also sits against a sensitive historical backdrop. Following the 2018 Haiti safeguarding scandal, Oxfam withdrew from bidding for new UK aid funding while reforms were assessed. UK government funding was paused for most of the period between 2018 and 2022, apart from a short window in 2021, before the pause was formally lifted on 10 November 2022. At that point, the government cited significant improvements to safeguarding systems.
Against that context, any suggestion that governance processes are not of the highest standard demands exceptional procedural clarity.
What boards should take from this
Good governance is not only the resolution a board passes. It is how that resolution is executed in public.
First, integrate communications into the decision itself. Boards should agree audience sequencing, the wording they can publish on their own channels on the day a decision is taken, and what they can commit to publishing later. If confidentiality prevents publication, that constraint should be stated clearly and consistently, rather than allowing fragments to emerge via media reporting.
Second, minimise selective disclosure. If reported coverage includes excerpts or characterisations from a report that will not be published, organisations should expect challenges around fairness and consistency. A short, neutral statement focused on process is often safer than background briefings that blend findings with interpretation, particularly when legal proceedings may follow.
Third, protect the safeguarding perimeter. Boards must be explicit about the distinction between HR processes, governance decisions and safeguarding investigations, where relevant. That distinction should be evidenced publicly.
These are not conclusions about the merits of the dispute itself, but governance considerations that apply whenever senior leadership changes become public and contested.
Practical support
For governance professionals, trustees and charity leaders seeking practical, principle-based support, our charity governance toolkit provides guidance on applying the Charity Governance Code to board decision-making.