Charity linked to Duke of Sussex accused of perpetrating atrocities

[AliceOlive]

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/28/charity-with-prince-harry-as-director-investigated-over-and-torture-claims

“A charity with strong ties to Prince Harry has been funding rangers responsible for horrific abuses against Indigenous people in the Congo, including torture and rape, according to a major investigation published in the UK’s Mail on Sunday.”

“The investigation has uncovered evidence of countless atrocities committed by African Parks’ “armed militia” against local Baka people. The organization has known for years that the abuses were taking place, but they have continued unabated.”

edited to add quotation marks

I don’t usually start threads but this seems much too important to shoehorn into any of the others currently running.

Does anyone understand the purpose of having a royal who lives a world away, as president of a charity that keeps people out of their own forest?

This indicates they literally kicked the Baka people out to create the park.

https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/13870

I've read about this @AliceOlive , but I'm stumped about it all to be honest.

“The entire conservation model as practiced by the big conservation organizations is built on the theft of Indigenous land, and the dispossession of the people who are its rightful owners - just as in the colonial era. It’s time to decolonize conservation.”

The main articles I’ve seen don’t give much understanding of it, the Survival International websites has articles, photos and videos. It’s not just African Parks charity and they must also be very well aware of the issues.

I am perplexed as to why a link to Harry (as opposed to all the other people who are directors or funders) is the focus of the article, or why it is on the Royal Family board.

I would assume the allegations are true given my knowledge of Survival International, but it rather seems that the Mail's main interest is in giving Harry another kicking rather than reporting on some terrible actions perpetrated by the staff of an organisation in the Congo. They didn't seem to care much about the story any time previously, or to care much about the rights of indigenous people anywhere in the world, and nor have the "called out" and named any of the other directors.

I'd love to think that the Mail gives a shit about a bunch of Africans, but the only time they would usually have anything to say is if they were in a small boat crossing the Channel.

True @AliceOlive , now I'm not one to defend Harry ! ( as you know!🤣) but I think he's just being dragged into it for publicity, what's the likelihood he's actually done any serious work or investigation into any of these actions.

I am perplexed as to why a link to Harry (as opposed to all the other people who are directors or funders) is the focus of the article, or why it is on the Royal Family board.

1.Harry is a member of the Royal Family
2.Harry is a Director of this company. That means he is personally liable for its actions and omissions.
3.There are other directors who also are personally liable for this (their liability is joint and several, as the lawyers describe it), but they aren’t members of the Royal Family.

I think that answers your question?

what's the likelihood he's actually done any serious work or investigation into any of these actions.

No likelihood, I imagine! And he’s not required to personally do this work. But as a Director he absolutely has a responsibility to ensure the allegations are appropriately investigated and looked into, and action is taken, if necessary. If he hasn’t done that, he hasn’t done his job.

No argument from me @Serenster !
I was just saying that for once I'm not blaming him ! 🤣🤣🤣

I agree his name is being used to draw attention to the atrocities. But he was president and is now on the board. He holds more than a small amount of responsibility for what the organization is doing.

He has been happy enough to be linked to African Parks recently when receiving the legends of aviation award.

He also can’t be ignorant of the charges nor of the wide controversy surrounding similar “conservation” organizations.

1. So what?
2. If it is a company then no he isn't. And that also depends on Congalese law, which I assume nobody here is an expert on.
3. So?

The only reason the Mail has named him and nobody else is because they love kicking Harry (and to be clear, I can't abide any of the royal family). They have never given a shit before, they don't give a shit now, and they won't tomorrow. And the same goes for most of the people on this board.

Do we know that for sure?

Plenty of boards especially in countries where corruption is an issue are ineffective.

Heck I’ve seen boards where I am where Governance is pretty overseen who have tried everything they could to meet with their legal requirements where the members of the organisation themselves have done everything to undermine the board until membership of the board became untenable. I know a board that has changed hands 3 times in 3 years for this reason.

If the management and board are not responsible for ensuring an organization or running properly, who on earth would be?

If others make this impossible then you walk away. In a case where atrocities are being committed you sound an alarm. Especially if you have the kind of platform held by a royal.

The Mail are definitely headlining this with Harry for clicks. I think that's a pity because this is a serious issue and shouldn't be used as a pawn for tabloids in their need for revenue.

I don't know how companies work abroad, here I believe Harry would have legal responsibility even if he didn't know what was happening? Regardless I do believe that charities who have local input, wherever they are, are more effective then those started by people outside the country.

A charity of this size in the UK would incorporated, so no, a director of a company has no personal liability unless it can be proven that they have acted negligently - and it is exceptionally rare that that happens.

A small amount of research about African Parks shows that they have dozens of layers of in country and international Boards, as would be expected in an organisation operating across a continent.

In no way am I excusing the actions of employees in the Congo if this is what is happening - and I have no reason to believe it isn't. But attempting to "blame" an individual who is far removed from the allegations without ANY evidence that they are culpable is disgusting. Of course, they could have named the entire Board, but then one of them has enough money to bury the Mail forever, and if their name were associated with these allegations, probably would. His wealth makes Harry look a pauper.

You have evidence that the Board of Directors knew about this and did nothing?

You are making an allegations that Harry knew, did nothing, and did not walk away. Not one single allegation of ANY of that is contained in the articles. So where are you getting your evidence from?

Royals are regularly sought after as patrons or supporters of UK based charities, and some of those charities employees have been involved in some VERY distasteful activities, but I do not recall the Mail running any articles about how the last Queen or others in the royal family are "linked" to those activities. In fact, they were keen to downplay certain people getting cases of money....

A director of a company has no personal liability unless it can be proven that they have acted negligently - and it is exceptionally rare that that happens.

Really not true… around 1,200 directors are disqualified in the UK each year for starters and that’s just one possible means of enforcement against a director that has failed in their duties.

I agree with everything you wrote. Also feel that any attention drawn to this issue is helpful.

Its only here because one person involves is RF.

It’s quite obvious the board and the president was alerted by Survival International and has had ample time to deal with the issue before it got to the point of being click-bait.

I think if one sits in a board of a charity using armed guards to keep indigenous people out of an area, they having an obligation to know exactly what they are doing. There is zero excuse for any of these people being ignorant of these activities, RF or otherwise.

@Neriah are you equating a legal cash donation to a charity from a world leader with keeping a people from feeding themselves via rape and torture?

The only reason the Mail has named him and nobody else is because they love kicking Harry (and to be clear, I can't abide any of the royal family). They have never given a shit before, they don't give a shit now, and they won't tomorrow. And the same goes for most of the people on this board

The fact that the messenger's motives are less than pure does not take away from the evil of this situation and the personal responsability of everyone involved.

Harry's name was brought into it, it seems, because Survival International brought the atroticiies to the attention of Prince Harry in his role as president of African Parks. They clearly believed he would intervene and help, it appears Harry quickly got rid of the hot potato, bounced it back to the CEO and washed his hands off it.

Harry calls himself a humanitarian, while he may not have a fiscal or admin accountability (although I believe he does) he certainly should have a moral responsibility and accountability not only in his role as a member of African Parks board, but in his role as a humanitarian and a human.

A whole year has passed since Harry was advised, he could have used his position to highlight the atrocities being carried out by employees of African Parks and support Survival International and the indigenous community by publicising what was going on , maybe taking a leaf from his friend Oprah during the sexual abuse scandal at her S. African girls school.

Not much of a humanitarian when it comes to it.

An object lesson in not having your name attached to things which in reality you have very little involvement with (or interest in)

@Neriah

You are making an allegations that Harry knew, did nothing, and did not walk away. Not one single allegation of ANY of that is contained in the articles. So where are you getting your evidence from?

It was in the survival international articles on their website however, here is something a bit more explicit from Newsweek:

Survival International, which represents Indigenous people around the world, contacted African Parks and Harry and Meghan Markle directly to warn them of the accusations from Baka people in Odzala-Kokoua National Park.

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-african-parks-charity-rape-torture-investigation-1864679