The Duke of Sussex is being sued by a charity he helped co-found in 2006 in honour of Princess Diana over what representatives have called an alleged ‘adverse media campaign’.

View 4 Images

Prince Harry issued a defiant two-word statement following news of the lawsuit on Friday(Image: Anadolu via Getty Images)

Prince Harry has blasted a lawsuit from Sentebale, a charity he co-founded, “offensive” and “damaging” in a defiant statement questioning the legal action.

The organisation, which Harry helped found in 2006 in honour of his late mother, Princess Diana, provides assistance for young people in Botswana and Lesotho, especially those who live with HIV and Aids. He, and another former trustee, Mark Dyer, are being pursued by the charity for an alleged “adverse media campaign” representatives have claimed caused disruption and “reputational harm”.

In a statement issued following news of the action on Friday night, a spokesperson for the Prince and Mr Dyer said the pair “categorically reject” the claims from Sentebale.

View 4 Images

Prince Harry founded the charity in 2006(Image: PA)

The spokesperson said: “As Sentebale’s co-founder and a founding trustee, they categorically reject these offensive and damaging claims. It is extraordinary that charitable funds are now being used to pursue legal action against the very people who built and supported the organisation for nearly two decades, rather than being directed to the communities the charity was created to serve.”

The statement was issued following one from the charity’s trustees and executive director stating the aim of the court case was “intervention, protection, and restitution”.

The charity said: “The proceedings have been brought against Prince Harry and Mark Dyer, identified through evidence as the architects of that adverse media campaign, which has had significant viral impact and triggered an onslaught of cyberbullying directed at the charity and its leadership.”

View 4 Images

Prince Harry is being sued by the charity he co-founded. (Image: AFP via Getty Images)

“Sentebale has experienced the adverse media campaign as false narratives circulated through the media about the charity and its leadership, attempts to undermine its relationships with staff, existing and prospective partners, and the forced diversion of leadership time and resources into managing a reputational crisis not of the charity’s making.

“The charity should not continue to use its resources to manage and address the damage this adverse media campaign has caused to its operations and partnerships. This must stop. The board and executive director have taken this legal action to secure that protection. The costs of doing so are met entirely by external funding and no charitable funds have been used.”

Sentebale’s claim, according to HM Courts and Tribunals Service, was filed on March 24 – but there are no additional details about the suit.

The trustees said legal costs for the action are being taken care of “entirely by external funding and no charitable funds have been used”.

View 4 Images

The Prince and other trustees got into a public dispute with Sentebale chair Sophie Chandauka(Image: PA)

The Duke of Sussex and other trustees, including fellow founder Prince Seeiso left the charity in March 2025. Their departure followed a bitter boardroom dispute with Sentebale chair Sophie Chandauka, with reports suggesting that a dispute had developed over fundraising.

It was also reported at the time that disagreements about fundraising had fuelled divisions within the charity, and accusations of poor behaviour led to an investigation by the Charity Commission.

Following the conclusion of that investigation in 2025, however, the watchdog found that there was blame on all sides, and criticised the public spat. Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth said in his own statement that the public-facing nature of the dispute had enabled a “damaging dispute to harm the charity’s reputation”

He said: “Sentebale’s problems played out in the public eye, enabling a damaging dispute to harm the charity’s reputation, risk overshadowing its many achievements, and jeopardising the charity’s ability to deliver for the very beneficiaries it was created to serve.”