A foundering charity: Sentebale – how passion for a cause can become a weakness rather than a strength

Posted: 29/08/2025

Another high profile charity has found itself as the subject of unwelcome headlines. Sentebale was founded in 2006 by the then 22-year-old Duke of Sussex to support young people in Lesotho and Botswana to address issues of health, wealth and climate resilience. It has been the subject of a Charity Commission enquiry following a potentially catastrophic dispute between the chair of trustees, other members of the board and, most intriguingly, its patron, the duke. The culmination of a remarkably rapid investigation by the regulator has led to the finding that all parties failed to meet the standards of good governance that the public should expect. The duke and his co-founder Prince Seeiso have expressed devastation upon submitting their resignations, and Sentebale will have to continue its journey without the impact of the undoubted star quality they brought.

So what happened? The commission's report states that in 2023, the trustees wished to introduce a new fundraising strategy in the US. Little more is said by the commission and there are few details being shared in the mainstream media, leaving inevitable space for speculation. Some readers may recall awkward moments broadcast during a polo match award ceremony, where the duke's wife, Meghan Sussex, appeared to jostle for position with Dr Sophie Chandauka, now chair of trustees. Seeing those images, one might infer that there were difficult relationship dynamics behind the scenes, leading to a breakdown in relationships within the charity. 

The regulator was alerted, though it is not stated by whom, and duly intervened. This is of interest to those used to dealing with the commission, since it usually is reluctant to mediate board disputes, indeed it regards this as overreaching its statutory powers. However, the high profile nature of the parties and the damaging nature of the public statements issued by key players may have left the commission with little choice.

The commission has now reviewed the evidence and published its findings:

• the delegation of certain powers to the chair, including consideration of an ‘executive chair’ role, was a 'confusing, convoluted and poorly governed process, with a lack of clearly defined delegations over time';
• the trustees failed to have proper processes and policies in place to investigate internal complaints;
• more generally, a lack of clear policies contributed to the failure to resolve disputes; and
• public statements made by the key players in the dispute to the media, and public criticism made in television interviews, were not conducted in a way that served the charity’s best interests.

In summary, the commission used its report on this case to emphasise that, where disagreements arise, trustees must not lose sight of their charity's best interests or the good work it does for those in need, suggesting that mediation can be a positive step to take.

So, how could this have been avoided? Charities can be passion projects for their founders, who often bring enormous energy and vision to their role. The challenge is how best to harness that passion and achieve the charity's goals while staying within the law. Sometimes there can be a mismatch between the views of the founder and those of their charity's staff and co-trustees, whether over strategic direction, priorities or the pace of delivery.  The challenge is for all parties to be mindful of this and to put in place a robust structure for governance of their charity so that there is clarity and transparency over who does what and when.

The role of the board is strategic oversight; the role of the senior management is operational delivery. A founder's role may be much less clear: they may be a manager or a trustee, but often they have no legally defined role, which can lead to confusion over the power they should rightfully wield. Without being anchored to a specific role within the charity, they must rely on their powers of persuasion to influence decision-making – this is a highly risky approach. 

In charity law there is a well-known concept of founder syndrome, where disproportionate power and influence is vested in that person. Charities can certainly benefit hugely from a capable, well-connected founder, but they would be very well-advised to put in place a clearly defined role description and/or terms of reference so that their strengths can be utilised and expectations clearly set. There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned from the fallout of Sentebale. If your charity is at risk of a dispute between those at the top, consider taking timely action to define roles and responsibilities, ensuring that your beneficiaries remain front and centre in all that you do.

Return to news headlines