When Charity Leadership Turns into a Royal Rumble
Sentebale, the charity co-founded by Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, has long been an internationally respected organisation doing vital work to support children affected by HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. However, in recent weeks, the charity’s future has seemed uncertain after it has found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, as a very public leadership dispute escalated into a full-blown governance crisis.
The fallout – resignations, allegations of misconduct, and now a Charity Commission investigation – all played out in excruciating detail in the public eye, courtesy of a salivating tabloid press sniffing an opportunity to take aim at Harry and Meghan.
This royal saga offers important lessons for charities navigating internal challenges. Chief among them is the discipline of restraint: knowing when to speak and, crucially, when to say nothing at all.
When Leadership Disputes Become Public
It is not uncommon for charities to experience leadership disagreements. However, when those disagreements spill into the public domain, they risk overshadowing the whole mission of the organisation. In Sentebale’s case, the dispute between its chair, Sophie Chandauka, and the remaining trustees quickly became an acrimonious public slanging match. Allegations of bullying, harassment, and governance failings followed, culminating in an investigation by the Charity Commission.
While transparency and accountability are fundamental in the nonprofit sector, airing grievances through the media rarely benefits any party involved. Instead, it creates an environment where the focus shifts from the charity’s cause to internal dysfunction. For donors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, this is deeply unsettling. It erodes trust and can lead to lasting reputational damage.
The Importance of a Unified, High-Level Response
When faced with governance challenges, organisations must resist the temptation to engage in back-and-forth disputes. Easier said than done sometimes – after all, who doesn’t enjoy a good tell-all? However, engaging in a tit-for-tat exchange only serves to fan the flames of controversy, and public mudslinging leads to everyone looking worse for wear. The most effective crisis responses are not reactive but measured and strategic. Rather than countering every claim or accusation, charities should issue a clear, high-level message and stick to it. Such an approach not only demonstrates professionalism but also helps to reassure stakeholders. Instead, the public witnessed chaotic exchanges and accusations of “blatant lies” that left many questioning the charity’s stability.
In Sentebale and Harry’s case, a simple and dignified public statement expressing confidence in their position and a willingness to cooperate fully with the Charity Commission’s robust investigation would have sufficed, underpinned by a thorough stakeholder management plan.
A well-managed crisis response should communicate stability and assurance. Charities should emphasise their commitment to their mission and the integrity of their governance structures. Anything beyond this risks prolonging the crisis and inviting further scrutiny.
Pride Comes Before a Fall
One of the most damaging aspects of crisis communication is allowing personal pride and ego to dictate responses and take precedence over the cause of the charity. The Sentebale situation appears to have been driven, at least in part, by personal conflicts within leadership. It’s a natural human instinct to want to have the last word in an argument but in cases like this, stepping back, remembering why everyone is supposed to be doing what they do and prioritising the interests of the charity over individual grievances is essential. Crisis management is not about winning personal arguments; it is about safeguarding the mission and maintaining public confidence.
Looking Ahead: Preparing for Scrutiny
The Charity Commission’s involvement in Sentebale underscores an important reality: all charities must be prepared for external scrutiny. Good governance practices, clear policies on leadership conduct, and a crisis communications plan should all be in place before problems arise. Being proactive rather than reactive ensures that when challenges do emerge, charities can respond in a way that protects their long-term viability.
Sentebale’s current difficulties serve as a cautionary tale for charity leaders everywhere. Internal disputes are inevitable, but how they’re handled can mean the difference between a minor hiccup and a full-blown scandal. Leadership disputes must be handled with discretion, crisis communication must be disciplined, egos must be left at the door and above all, organisations must remain focused on their mission. At the heart of this is the urgent need to support vulnerable children – yet that vital work is now being overshadowed by internal conflicts and messy public disputes. The lesson for all charities is clear: in times of crisis, silence can often be the most powerful tool, and measured, strategic communication is the key to preserving trust, integrity and most importantly the ability to continue delivering vital help to those who need it the most.
