International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan was removed from his role on July 24, 2026, after 82 of 125 member states voted to oust him over allegations of sexual misconduct. Khan, who faced accusations from a junior female staffer, denied the claims and called the process procedurally unfair,
while his legal team argued the decision lacked evidence. The move marks the first time an ICC chief prosecutor has been dismissed, triggering debates over the court’s independence and credibility.
The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was removed from office on July 24, 2026, after the Assembly of States Parties voted to end his tenure over allegations of sexual misconduct. The decision, which required a majority of the court’s 125 member states, followed a protracted disciplinary process involving claims from a junior female staffer who accused Khan of nonconsensual sexual conduct. Khan, who has denied the allegations, called the vote unsupported by any lawful or properly reasoned finding
and vowed to challenge it legally.
A Contested Process and Unverified Allegations
The disciplinary process against Khan began in 2024 after a junior female staffer, identified only as Sarah, claimed he engaged in coercive and non-consensual behavior, including groping, attempted kissing, and digital and genital penetration.
Sarah, who worked for Khan at the ICC, described the misconduct as a gradual encroachment on her boundaries, stating, There is no way for something to be consensual when you have such a power disparity.
The ICC’s oversight body, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), investigated the allegations and concluded in 2026 that Khan had committed serious misconduct.
However, Khan’s legal team, led by Tayab Ali of Bindmans LLP, disputed the findings, arguing that the OIOS report contained no finding of misconduct, including sexual misconduct.
Ali also criticized the Assembly of States Parties for failing to allow Khan’s legal team to present formal arguments before the vote.
The Assembly’s decision, which passed with 82 votes in favor, 13 against, and 11 abstentions, was based on a fact-finding report by a UN watchdog and a legal analysis by a three-judge panel. The panel had previously ruled in March 2026 that the OIOS findings did not establish misconduct or a breach of duty by Khan. Despite this, the Assembly upheld the removal, with Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Kravik stating Khan was “unfit” to serve.
Political Tensions and Legal Challenges
The court’s executive committee, however, stated Khan’s removal would not affect the 2024 warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, which remain in place.
Khan’s legal team has vowed to challenge the decision through all available legal mechanisms,
arguing the process violated due process. Ali emphasized that the Assembly’s vote was politically driven
and procedurally unfair,
noting that Khan was removed while under U.S. sanctions and amid intense political pressure.
Implications for the ICC’s Credibility
The removal of Khan has sparked concerns about the ICC’s independence and ability to function effectively. Danya Chaikel of the International Federation for Human Rights praised the accuser’s extraordinary courage
but warned that the decision risks undermining the court’s credibility. The world, and not least the victims of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, needs an International Criminal Court that functions effectively,
said Norway’s Andreas Kravik.
The ICC’s future remains uncertain as it faces renewed scrutiny from the U.S. and other powers. The court’s leadership will now begin the process of appointing a new prosecutor, though a vote is not expected before 2027. Meanwhile, Khan’s case has reignited debates about the balance between due process, institutional accountability, and the political pressures facing international courts.
His legal team reiterated that he denies the allegations from the outset and continues to do so,
while the ICC reiterated its commitment to conducting independent and impartial investigations and prosecutions.
