ICC Member States Vote to Remove Prosecutor Karim Khan Over Misconduct

The Assembly of States Parties Vote

The decision to dismiss Karim Khan was finalized during a closed-door session at the United Nations headquarters in New York. The vote serves as the final step in a protracted disciplinary procedure that had previously seen Khan suspended by the court’s governing body in June.

The governing body concluded that Khan committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty, a finding that prompted the referral to the full assembly. While supporters of the prosecutor have argued the process was tainted by political maneuvering, Assembly of States President Päivi Kaukoranta stated that the assembly fully respected Khan’s due process rights throughout the investigation.

Allegations and Legal Defense

The misconduct allegations, which first surfaced in 2024, involved a junior staffer at the court. The complainant, who has spoken publicly about her experience, alleged that Khan engaged in a pattern of coercive sexual behavior, including unwanted touching and groping. In a recent interview with CNN, the accuser described feeling humiliated by the prosecutor’s actions and denied claims that she was acting as a state agent for any outside government.

Khan has consistently denied all allegations of wrongdoing. His legal team, led by Tayab Ali, has characterized the disciplinary proceedings as fundamentally flawed.

“Mr Khan’s removal was determined by a process in which he was never given a fair opportunity to be heard, and in defiance of the conclusions of the independent judges who examined the full evidential record.”

Tayab Ali, head of Khan’s legal team

Ali further argued that an earlier investigation conducted by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) did not establish misconduct or breach of duty by Mr Khan under the relevant legal framework. The defense maintains that the removal process was inconsistent with those findings and intends to challenge the decision through legal mechanisms, according to coverage from Al Jazeera.

ICC Member States Vote to Remove Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan

Geopolitical Pressure and Court Independence

The dismissal of the chief prosecutor arrives at a time of extreme strain for the International Criminal Court. In 2024, Khan sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas leaders, regarding actions taken during the war in Gaza. These decisions drew sharp criticism from both the United States and Israel.

The U.S. government, which is not a member of the ICC, has recently intensified its opposition to the tribunal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the U.S. is launching a sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty. As reported by AP News, the Trump administration has already imposed financial penalties and travel bans on 13 ICC staff members, including Khan.

Some observers worry that the court’s internal turmoil, combined with external hostility, threatens its institutional integrity. Tayab Ali warned that the decision has grave implications beyond Mr Khan’s individual case, emphasizing that the court’s independence relies on protecting officials from politically motivated removal processes. Conversely, other international observers, such as Liz Evenson of Human Rights Watch, highlighted the importance of the court maintaining internal standards, noting that the tribunal should hold itself to the highest standards regarding workplace safety and the handling of abuse allegations.

Operational Outlook for the ICC

Despite the change in leadership, the ICC has signaled that its core functions will continue. The court confirmed that the arrest warrants issued in 2024 for Netanyahu and Gallant remain in effect, as they can only be withdrawn by the court’s judges. Deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameen Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang have assumed leadership of the office in the interim.

The court now faces the challenge of electing a successor. The process is expected to be difficult, as the next prosecutor will likely inherit the same complex diplomatic landscape and the threat of ongoing U.S. sanctions. Additionally, the court is dealing with broader institutional reactions, such as Venezuela’s announcement that it would withdraw from the court following the vote. As the court moves toward a new election cycle, the primary uncertainty remains how the institution will reconcile its mandate to prosecute international crimes with the mounting political and financial pressure from major global powers.