Prince Harry sued for defamation by charity he co-founded

Lead

Prince Harry is facing a defamation lawsuit from Sentebale, the African charity he co-founded in honour of his late mother, Princess Diana. The charity has lodged papers in London’s High Court naming both Harry and his close friend, former trustee Mark Dyer, as defendants, according to court records reviewed by multiple news outlets.

The case, filed on 24 March, centres on allegations of a “coordinated adverse media campaign” that Sentebale says has caused “operational disruption and reputational harm.” A spokesperson for Harry has responded that he “categorically” rejects the “offensive and damaging” libel claim, as reported by Reuters.

Coverage comparison

Reports from seven international news sources—including BBC, Al Jazeera, ABC Australia, Africa News, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, and The Hindu—are broadly aligned on the core facts: Sentebale has sued Harry for defamation, the lawsuit is filed in London’s High Court, and the dispute stems from his departure as patron last year.

However, coverage varies in depth. Some outlets, such as The Guardian, provide extensive details from Sentebale’s legal statement, while others, like The Hindu, offer only a brief summary. Africa News and South China Morning Post highlight that disagreements surfaced in 2023 over a new fundraising strategy, while ABC Australia emphasises that Harry quit after relationships with the chair and trustees “broke down beyond repair.” Al Jazeera is the only source to prominently feature Harry’s spokesperson’s rejection of the claim.

All sources describe the lawsuit as a defamation claim, though the precise nature—libel or slander—remains unclear from the online filings, which do not contain detailed documents.

Key claims

Sentebale, founded by Harry and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho in 2006 to support young people living with HIV in Botswana and Lesotho, has accused Harry and Dyer of being “the architects of that adverse media campaign,” according to the charity’s statement quoted by The Guardian. The charity said the campaign “triggered an onslaught of cyberbullying directed at the charity and its leadership.”

Harry and Prince Seeiso resigned as patrons in March 2025, following a public dispute with the charity’s chair, Dr Sophie Chandauka. Chandauka, a lawyer appointed in 2023, later accused Harry of orchestrating a campaign of bullying and harassment to force her out, as reported by Africa News and South China Morning Post.

The Charity Commission for England and Wales investigated the dispute and, according to multiple sources, criticised both sides for allowing the issue to be played out in public, which damaged the charity’s reputation. The commission found no evidence of widespread or systemic bullying, harassment, or misogyny, per ABC Australia and Africa News. Its CEO, David Holdsworth, said in August 2025 that the dispute had “risk overshadowing its many achievements,” as quoted by Africa News.

Harry’s spokesman criticised the commission’s report, while Chandauka welcomed it, according to Africa News.

Perspectives

From the charity’s perspective, the lawsuit is a necessary step to protect its operations and partnerships. Sentebale’s statement, as quoted by The Guardian, argues that the adverse media campaign has forced the charity to divert resources into managing a reputational crisis “not of the charity’s making.” The charity insists that legal costs are covered by external funding and that no charitable funds are being used.

From Prince Harry’s side, his spokesperson has categorically rejected the claim, describing it as offensive and damaging. The prince’s representatives have not provided further details on the defence, according to Reuters.

The dispute has also drawn commentary from the Charity Commission, which has urged both sides to avoid public conflict. The commission’s criticism of both parties suggests that the fallout has been detrimental to the charity’s mission, which is to support vulnerable young people in southern Africa.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the case marks an unusual development: a prince once known for his charitable work now finds himself on the defensive in a courtroom over his own foundation's allegations.