logo
Prince Harry's camp issue stinging statement rebuking Charity Commission report into Sentebale

Prince Harry's camp issue stinging statement rebuking Charity Commission report into Sentebale

Daily Mail​3 days ago
Prince Harry 's camp has issued a stinging statement rebuking the Charity Commission report into the racism row at his beloved African youth organisation.
Sentebale's former trustees, many of whom are long-time friends of the prince and resigned en masse in March, claimed the watchdog had 'chosen to ignore key concerns and irrefutable evidence' which they raised over the 'leadership and oversight' of its new chair, Dr Sophie Chandauka.
Harry also personally hit out at 'false' claims of bullying, racism and misogyny alleged by her against him, of which he said no was evidence was found - waspishly adding the word 'unsurprisingly' in an official statement.
Sympathetic media were also briefed of his disappointment with 'sources close to Harry' claiming that he was 'devastated that the chair has been allowed to succeed with a hostile takeover' and accusing the Charity Commission of 'sitting so far on the fence that their feet are not even touching the ground'.
The comments are a repeat of the reaction given by the prince when he recently lost a major High Court case over the cost and provision of official police security in the UK, in which he said he had been the victim of an 'Establishment stitch-up'.
However supporters of Dr Chandauka expressed disappointment and concern at such a 'bitter' reaction, particularly given clear calls by the Charity Commission for all sides not to play their differences out in public and risk damaging the charity's reputation further.
'It does sound like sour grapes because the report made clear there was no criticism of Sophie personally and that Sentebale has correctly put a new team of trustees in place in order to move forwards from this [incident] and get on with their work helping the young people of Lesotho and Botswana,' they said.
Sources have also pointed out that the Commission itself has admitted that it cannot investigate or adjudicate on individual allegations of bullying and, therefore, questioned on what basis it could rule that there was 'no evidence' to support Dr Chandauka's claims that she had been the victim of bullying and misogyny 'at scale'.
A spokesman for the watchdog told the Mail that it appreciated 'individuals involved feel aggrieved about others' behaviour' but it had to asses the evidence through the 'lens of a regulator applying charity law'.
The statement from the charity's former trustees, who include Harry's 'second father' and mentor, Mark Dyer, said: 'We are disheartened by the way in which the Charity Commission has chosen to ignore key concerns and irrefutable evidence raised with them regarding the leadership and oversight of Sentebale's Chair.
'We accept there is always room to strengthen governance of an organisation, which is why we welcomed a governance review by the Chair initiated in February 2024, and that should have only taken a matter of months - we unfortunately never saw a report or any outcomes enacted, more than two years into her tenure.
'We remain gravely concerned for the future of the charity and the wellbeing of the communities we served for 19 years, following the mission set out by Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso in honour of their mothers.'
Sentebale said it welcomes the conclusion of the compliance case and the issuing of an action plan, thanked the Charity Commission for its 'thorough review' and that it looked forward to moving forwards with confidence 'free from interference'.
It comes after Harry last night walked away from the charity following the damning report into the explosive race row.
The Charity Commission investigation criticised both sides of the acrimonious boardroom battle yet the war of words between the two continued.
The probe said it could find 'no evidence' of 'widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir' at Sentebale after Dr Chandauka made a series of incendiary allegations about the behaviour of the Duke of Sussex and his fellow trustees.
And it criticised the trustees, including Harry, who resigned after the furore blew up in the public domain.
Their failure to resolve disputes internally, 'severely impacted the charity's reputation and risked undermining public trust in charities more generally,' the Charity Commission found.
In March, Harry resigned as patron of Sentebale, the charity he founded in 2006, going on to say he expected the investigation to 'unveil the truth' while hoping the charity would be 'put in the right hands', suggesting there may have been a path back for him.
Sentebale was set up to help orphans with Aids in the impoverished kingdom of Lesotho in memory of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales .
The name means 'forget me not' in the country's official language.
Last night, he made clear he had no intention of returning, with a spokesman saying: 'With the original mission of Sentebale firmly in mind - and in honour of the legacy he and Prince Seeiso [of Lesotho] began - The Duke of Sussex will now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana.'
The watchdog acknowledged the 'strong perception of ill treatment' felt by all parties, including Dr Chandauka, and the impact this may have had on them personally.
They ultimately found that a series of failures leading up to, and following, the dispute had led to 'mismanagement in the administration of the charity'.
But, despite the Commission urging both sides in the dispute to take a step back from playing out their problems 'in the public eye', it is clear that both sides remain deeply entrenched.
In a further escalation of the war of words, a spokesman for the prince said it was 'unsurprising' that the report makes no findings of wrongdoing in relation to himself, or evidence of bullying or racism.
The statement also hit out at the Charity Commission itself whose report he claimed fell 'troublingly short in many regards'.
In her statement, Dr Chandauka emphasised that it was she who first privately raised concerns about the charity's governance with the Commission in February this year.
It was only after she did this, she stressed, that 'those who resigned' in March launched an 'unexpected and adverse media campaign' that had gone on to cause 'incalculable damage' to the charity's work.
Tellingly, she added that the campaign subsequently publicly waged against her 'offers a glimpse of the unacceptable behaviours displayed in private'.
Talking of the 'intense' and difficult process, she added: 'We are emerging not just grateful to have survived but stronger....with our dignity intact.'
The row first exploded publicly in March when The Times newspaper was briefed about Harry's decision to resign from his role along with his co-founder Prince Seeiso and fellow trustees, many of whom were close personal friends and associates of the royal, amid a row with Dr Chandauka about the governance and future of Sentebale.
He said his decision was 'devastating' and 'unthinkable' but described her leadership as 'untenable'.
Dr Chandauka hit back, claiming the charity was beset by 'misogynoir' - misogyny against black women - and accusing the duke of 'bullying at scale' because she wanted to base the charity's operations and governance more fully in Africa and look for new sources of revenue other than Harry's favoured polo matches.
She said scathingly: '...beneath all the victim narrative and fiction that has been syndicated to press is the story of a woman who dared to blow the whistle about issues of poor governance, weak executive management, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, misogyny, misogynoir and the cover-up that ensued. I could be anyone.'
She also called the Sussexes' brand 'toxic' and said the prince's ability to attract funding for Sentebale had been detrimentally affected by the way he had quit royal duties.
Dr Chandauka also lifted the lid on a peculiar incident at a fundraising polo match in April 2024, when Harry and Meghan turned up with a Netflix camera crew in tow, and the duchess was publicly crucified for apparently wanting to hog the limelight.
She alleged that Harry asked her to make a statement in defence of his wife and when she refused, saying it was important that Sentebale wasn't seen as an 'extension of the Sussexes', she claimed she received an 'extraordinary, unpleasant and imperious' text message from the prince which further soured their relationship.
Following a lengthy investigation into the complaints from both sides, the Charity Commission said last night that it had issued the charity with a 'Regulatory Action Plan' to address 'governance weaknesses' after a 'damaging internal dispute emerged' between Dr Chandauka, the Duke of Sussex and other trustees.
The Commission emphasised that its role had been limited to determining whether the charity's current and former trustees, including its chair, have fulfilled their duties and responsibilities under charity law.
It is not its responsibility to adjudicate or mediate internal disputes in charities, it stressed.
However the Commission also simultaneously admitted that it cannot investigate individual allegations of bullying.
The Commission, it said, had identified a lack of clarity around role descriptions and internal policies as the primary cause for weaknesses in the charity's management.
It found that this confusion exacerbated tensions, which culminated in a dispute and multiple resignations of trustees and both founding patrons.
The Commission found that delegation of certain powers to the chair was 'confusing and poorly governed', but that trustees also failed to have proper processes and policies in place in investigate internal complaints.
It added that the fact the ensuing row played out in the media, including explosive television interviews, were not in the charity's best interests.
The Commission also found there was a 'missed opportunity; to resolve the issues, which was contributed to by financial difficulties following the Covid pandemic, which contributed to tensions.
It added that more robust policies around the position and remit of patrons needed to be put in place.
The Commission added: 'The regulator has criticised all parties to the dispute for allowing it [the dispute] to play out publicly, and further concluded that the then trustees' failure to resolve disputes internally severely impacted the charity's reputation and risked undermining public trust in charities more generally.
'We hope our public statement will draw a line in the sand and that the focus can now be on allowing the charity's work to continue.
David Holdsworth, chief executive of the Charity Commission, added: 'Passion for a cause is the bedrock of volunteering and charity, delivering positive impact for millions of people here at home and abroad every day.
'However, in the rare cases when things go wrong, it is often because that very passion has become a weakness rather than a strength.
'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.
'This case highlights what can happen when there are gaps in governance and policies critical to charities' ability to deliver for their cause.'
Sentebale said it welcomed the announcement and confirmation that the charity has correctly appointed new trustees to take the charity forward.
It added that it wished to thank the Charity Commission for the thorough way in which it conducted the review, including 'its responsiveness to the governance concerns that were first privately raised with the Charity Commission in February 2025 through its whistleblowing procedure'.
'With these strong foundations now in place, Sentebale can move forward with confidence - free from interference, committed to continuous improvement, and focused on delivering solutions addressing health, wealth and climate resilience for children and young people in Southern Africa,' it added.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Vance says US is ‘done with funding Ukraine war' ahead of Trump-Putin talks
Vance says US is ‘done with funding Ukraine war' ahead of Trump-Putin talks

The Independent

time4 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Vance says US is ‘done with funding Ukraine war' ahead of Trump-Putin talks

The US is 'done with the funding of the Ukraine war', vice president JD Vance has warned. The American politician also vowed Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky will be 'forced' to meet by Donald Trump. In a wide-ranging interview, he went on to dismiss European leaders' calls to allow the Ukrainian president to attend the upcoming summit between the US and Russian leaders, insisting that it would not be 'productive' at this point. On Saturday, European leaders including Sir Keir Starmer jointly welcomed the meeting, which is planned for Friday in Alaska, as a move towards peace. However, they warned that any talks should see Ukraine represented and not permit any land to be ceded to Russia. Their statement came after Mr Trump admitted the deal may involve 'some swapping of territories' - a suggestion Mr Zelensky strongly rejected. Mr Vance told Fox News that Mr Trump 'has to be the one to bring these two together', before criticising Europe for not 'stepping up'. He said: 'What we said to the Europeans is simply: this is in your neck of the woods, this is in your back door. You guys have gotta step up and take a bigger role in this thing. And if you care so much about this conflict, you should be willing to play a more direct and substantial way in funding this war yourself. 'I think the president, and I certainly think that America, we're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business. We wanna bring about a peaceful settlement of this thing, we wanna stop the killing.' Mr Vance met with top European and Ukrainian officials at the British foreign secretary's weekend residence on Saturday to discuss how to end the war. European Commission president Kaja Kallas confirmed that European foreign ministers are scrambling to convene for an emergency meeting on Monday ahead of Friday's summit. As European nations rally behind Ukraine, Mr Zelensky thanked his allies, writing in a post on X on Sunday: "The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people." A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as they aren't allowed to speak publicly, told the Associated Press that Mr Trump remained open to a trilateral summit with both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, but for now, he will have a bilateral meeting requested by Putin. The summit may prove pivotal in the war that began in February 2022, although there is no guarantee it will stop the fighting, since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. Saturday's statement, signed by the president of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the UK, stressed the need for a "just and lasting peace" for Kyiv, including "robust and credible" security guarantees. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine," it added. US senator Lindsey Graham told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that a good deal would mean preventing an emboldened Russia, and aggressors elsewhere, from trying to once again redraw borders by force. A Trump ally and Russia hawk, Mr Graham nevertheless said that "you can't end a war without talking'. He added: "I do hope that Zelenskyy can be part of the process. I have every confidence in the world that [President Trump] is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honourably.' A month-long US-led push to achieve a truce in Ukraine has so far proved fruitless, with Kyiv agreeing in principle while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Mr Zelensky said on Saturday that Ukraine "will not give Russia any awards for what it has done" and that "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier". Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Mr Zelensky, noted on Sunday that Kyiv will strive to boost its position ahead of the planned Trump-Putin meeting. "Ahead lies an important week of diplomacy," he said. German chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Sunday that European leaders are "intensively preparing" ahead of the Alaska summit, while they "hope and expect" that Mr Zelensky will be invited. Nato's secretary general Mark Rutte on Sunday praised Washington for taking steps such as allowing more military equipment to flow to Ukraine and imposing secondary sanctions on India for purchasing Russian oil, saying Trump "clearly is putting pressure on Putin". In the interview with ABC's This Week, Mr Rutte added: 'Next Friday will be important because it will be about testing Putin – how serious he is – on bringing this terrible war to an end.' Meanwhile, Ukraine and Russia continued to trade blows on the battlefield on Sunday. Three swimmers were killed by unexploded objects in Ukraine's southern Odesa region at two beaches where swimming has been banned, regional officials said. And Ukraine's military said on Sunday that it had struck an oil refinery in Russia's Saratov region in an overnight drone attack.

Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed

Telegraph

time4 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed

Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.

Dancing on Alex Salmond's grave does Nicola Sturgeon no favours
Dancing on Alex Salmond's grave does Nicola Sturgeon no favours

Times

time6 minutes ago

  • Times

Dancing on Alex Salmond's grave does Nicola Sturgeon no favours

Revenge, as we all know, is a dish best served cold; retaliation is even better when your enemy is already dead and buried and can't answer back. Nicola Sturgeon says she debated with herself over whether or not to include in her autobiography Frankly a chapter on the sexual allegations against Alex Salmond, who died last year. No contest. Of course she was going to use this opportunity to dance on her former mentor's grave. • Alex Salmond and the truth behind our fallout, by Nicola Sturgeon Harsh? Not as harsh as her remarks about the former first minister of Scotland. She accuses Salmond of a concerted attempt to 'destroy' her and says he privately admitted 'the substance' of the sexual harassment charges of which he was acquitted in 2020. Salmond isn't around to rebut all this, which is convenient. He believed, on the contrary, that there was 'a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned'. This group, known to Sturgeon, even if she didn't collude with them, made a series of extremely serious allegations which were rejected by the highest court in the land. But the way she tells it, it was all about a big bad man trying to ruin her. She even suggests that it was Salmond who leaked the original allegations of sexual impropriety to the Daily Record in August 2018. Well, even the journalist who broke the story, the Record's political editor at the time, David Clegg, told the BBC Sunday show that this was 'not credible'. Would Salmond have used the Labour-supporting tabloid as a conduit? The Record front page screamed 'Alex Salmond accused of 'touching woman's breasts and bum in boozy Bute House bedroom encounter''. An odd way to 'control the narrative', as Sturgeon claims. 'At a stroke,' she goes on, 'he was able to cast himself as the victim.' I don't think Record readers would have thought that. Sturgeon says the Scottish government dropped its defence against Salmond's subsequent judicial review when they realised that the official in charge had had prior contact with the complainers. What she doesn't say is that the Scottish government was warned by its own legal adviser, Roddy Dunlop KC, in August 2018 that they hadn't a snowball's chance of winning. Yet they ploughed on right up to the moment in early 2019 when the Court of Session ruled that the process that accused Salmond was unlawful, unfair and 'tainted with apparent bias'. Why they persevered with this hopeless case is a mystery. It led to Salmond winning £512,000 in costs and to utter humiliation for the Scottish government. Sturgeon suggests in extracts in The Sunday Times that the 'botched' process was the fault of Leslie Evans, the head of the civil service at the time. 'It was not unreasonable,' the former first minister writes, 'to say that the buck stopped with her.' Some might argue that the buck stopped with the person who authorised the botched disciplinary process in the first place back in December 2017. This was one Nicola Sturgeon. The first minister was responding to claims by the lawyer Aamer Anwar that he had a 'catalogue of sexual harassment cases' going uninvestigated in Holyrood. • Nicola Sturgeon: My miscarriage, sexuality and the day I was arrested Hardly had Salmond walked out of the Court of Session after his victory in January 2019 than the police arrested him and charged him with 14 counts of attempted rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. The timing of this is highly suggestive. Police Scotland launched their criminal investigation the previous September. Did the Scottish government expect Salmond to be arrested before the judicial review even arrived in court? Who knows? Sturgeon writes that if Salmond's conspiracy claim was true: 'It would have required criminal collusion between them [the women accusers], senior ministers and civil servants.' What is not in doubt is that the criminal complaints came from a group of SNP politicians, party workers and Scottish government officials. Sturgeon accepts that there was discussion among these people accusing Salmond of criminal misdeeds but denies that this amounted to collusion. It was just that 'women who considered themselves victims of his behaviour were seeking support and comfort from each other'. It is also on record that Evans pinged a text after the judicial review debacle saying, 'Battle may be lost but not the war'. According to Sturgeon, however, there was no war; it was all about Salmond refusing to accept his guilt. She seems to think that his very defence was an act of violence against women. 'He was prepared to traumatise, time and time again, the women at the centre of it all.' So, should he not have contested these charges because the women who made them might be upset? In her Times extract, Sturgeon somehow fails even to mention that Salmond was acquitted of all the criminal charges by a female-dominated jury before a female judge, Lady Dorrian, in March 2020. Nor does she record that key complainers never wanted the police involved in the first place. Salmond was exonerated in the eyes of the law but not in Sturgeon's. His very court victories, she suggests, were expressions of his 'animus' toward her. 'Eventually … I had to face the fact that he was determined to destroy me. I was now engaged in mortal political combat with someone I knew to be both ruthless and highly effective.' Well, that much is true. Salmond never gave up trying to clear his name and expose his accusers. Even as he died in North Macedonia, he was pursuing a claim of 'misfeasance' against the Scottish government and apparently seeking damages of £3 million. Salmond's family and Alba Party supporters had been considering whether or not to continue with this case. One suspects that after Sturgeon's self-pitying demolition job they'll be more determined than ever. It was 'frankly' ill-advised to launch this attack when Salmond can't give his side of the story. What was she thinking? Everyone knows what the former first minister was like personally. His own defence counsel, Gordon Jackson KC, called him an 'objectionable bully'. But that didn't make him a criminal. Sturgeon should have left it at that. Her tendentious and self-justifying account simply revives speculation about her involvement in this dark affair. It is never a good idea to speak ill of the dead.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store