Member states of the International Criminal Court voted on Friday to oust Prosecutor Karim Khan following an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, marking the first time a chief prosecutor has ever been removed from office in a special meeting at the UN headquarters in New York.
The International Criminal Court entered an unprecedented constitutional crisis on Friday as diplomats from 125 member states gathered in a closed-door session at the United Nations headquarters in New York to permanently remove Prosecutor Karim Khan. Eighty-two nations voted in favor of the ouster, concluding a drawn-out disciplinary process that began after a junior female staff member accused the British barrister of sexual abuse. Thirteen member states voted against the removal, while 11 abstained, according to sources familiar with the result.
The departure of Khan shatters a nine-year mandate that began when the prominent lawyer was elected in 2021 to lead the court’s prosecution division. His tenure gained global visibility and thrust the court into geopolitical crosshairs when his office sought arrest warrants for high-profile figures, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While those judicial warrants remain unaffected by his removal, the prosecution office of approximately 400 staff members now faces profound institutional instability.
Disciplinary Findings and Procedural Battlegrounds
The removal vote followed months of conflicting internal reports and procedural friction. In June, the executive committee of the court’s governing body suspended Khan after concluding he had committed serious misconduct in connection with sexual abuse allegations. Päivi Kaukoranta, president of the oversight body known as the Assembly of States Parties, stated that the governing body concluded Khan committed serious misconduct and serious breach of duty
, as reported by AP News.
The allegations first surfaced publicly when the complainant, a lawyer originally from Malaysia who has worked for the court since 2017, detailed her experiences in an interview. Referred to in internal documents as V01
and known publicly as Sarah, she described a year of non-consensual encroachments after she began working as his direct assistant in February 2023. A confidential UN Office of Internal Oversight Services report circulated in December found a factual basis for the claims. However, a separate March report by a panel of judicial experts convened by the court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
Khan’s defense team fiercely contested the legitimacy of the proceedings. Sareta Ashraph, lead counsel for Khan, maintained that the UN watchdog report lacked the standing of the judicial panel and presented conflicting narratives.
“Khan’s removal was determined by a process in which he was never given a fair opportunity to be heard.”
Tayab Ali, Lawyer for Karim Khan, via The Guardian
Geopolitical Aftershocks and Institutional Strains
Throughout the disciplinary proceedings, Khan and his defenders repeatedly claimed that the allegations were part of a coordinated effort to discredit him in retaliation for his pursuit of war crimes warrants against Israeli leadership. The UN oversight report and subsequent investigative findings found no evidence supporting assertions that the complainant was operating as a state agent or being used by third-party intelligence agencies.
At the same time, the court faces severe external hostility. The United States administration has maintained sanctions against several ICC judges and prosecutors, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently vowing a sweeping campaign to dismantle the tribunal’s operations. Hours after the removal vote, Venezuela announced its withdrawal from the court, citing a perceived geographical bias that disproportionately targeted African and Latin American nations.
Unresolved Leadership and Future Operations
The tribunal must now navigate the process of appointing a permanent successor.
Legal observers note that the controversy leaves the institution in a fragile state. With the prosecution division bruised by internal conflict and facing intense diplomatic pressure from major powers, the incoming leadership inherits an organization fighting to preserve its operational independence.
Related reading
