The chairwoman of Prince Harry’s former charity has been accused of acting in the “poorest possible taste” after referencing Princess Diana in a statement defending her position.
Dr Sophie Chandauka, chairwoman of Sentebale, made the remarks after the Charity Commission ruled she could remain in post, despite a governance row that led to Prince Harry, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho and other trustees resigning in March.
The Duke of Sussex co-founded Sentebale in 2006 to support children affected by HIV and AIDS in Lesotho and Botswana, continuing the legacy of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. However, after months of internal conflict, Harry and Seeiso stepped down, accusing Dr Chandauka of mismanagement and calling on her to resign.
**ARE YOU READING THIS ON OUR APP? DOWNLOAD NOW FOR THE BEST GB NEWS EXPERIENCE**
Charity chairwoman accused of ‘poorest possible taste’ over Princess Diana remark
|GETTY
She responded by alleging bullying, harassment and misogynoir—claims that became part of a wider Charity Commission investigation into the dispute.
The Commission’s findings, released on Wednesday, criticised both sides and found governance failings. It allowed Dr Chandauka and the current board to remain in place, but said it would be monitoring the charity’s compliance with an official Regulatory Action Plan.
Following the ruling, Dr Chandauka released a statement saying: “Despite the recent turbulence, we will always be inspired by the vision of our founders, Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso, who established Sentebale in memory of their precious mothers, Princess Diana and Queen Mamohato.”
The comment has prompted a strong backlash from allies of Prince Harry. One source close to the Duke told the Telegraph: “For Sophie Chandauka to have invoked Princess Diana’s memory in her own defence was in the poorest possible taste.
Dr Sophie Chandauka previously accused Harry of 'harassment and bullying at scale' | PA“She’s got what she wants, which is control of the charity, but unfortunately the people who suffer most out of all of this…are the children of Lesotho and Botswana.”
They added: “The most devastating thing for Prince Harry in all of this is that his life’s work and all the money he was able to pump into Lesotho and Botswana through his work has gone down in flames.
“She’s allowing it to go down in flames because of her own pride and hubris…[Harry] has for the last 19 years established this charity from nothing.”
Dr Chandauka previously claimed in a Sky News interview that Harry tried to use Sentebale as “an extension of the Sussex PR machine.”
Prince Harry founded Sentebale in 2006 | GETTYThe Commission ultimately found no evidence of widespread or systemic bullying, misogyny or misogynoir. Nor did it find any overreach by Harry in his role as patron.
Sentebale issued a separate statement on Wednesday saying the ruling provided “some degree of reassurance” but warned that further action could follow.
“The Commission has not investigated any individual allegations and therefore has not made any findings in relation to individuals, including Prince Harry,” the statement said.
“The issues not investigated by the Commission can and may be dealt with through avenues more appropriate than the Commission.”
In March, Prince Harry accused Sentebale's chairwoman of telling 'blatant lies' | GETTYA spokesman for the Duke said the investigation had fallen “troublingly short,” adding that he would “now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana.”
Harry previously donated £1.2million to the charity from the proceeds of his memoir Spare, in addition to raising millions over the years.
A source close to the Duke accused Dr Chandauka of using her claims to avoid scrutiny over her own leadership.
“It has been her agenda from the start to take over this charity and to get rid of those committed members of the board of trustees who had given over years of their own lives without remuneration for a cause that meant so much to them,” they said.
They added the bullying and misogyny allegations were “a strategy to effectively divert attention away from what the board saw as widespread financial irregularities [under her leadership].”