Diplomats representing nations from across the globe have convened at United Nations headquarters in New York for a historic vote on whether to permanently remove the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor from his position.
Karim Khan, a British barrister, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct involving a female staff member — accusations that were first detailed in a series of reports by The Associated Press. Khan has consistently denied the allegations throughout the more than two-year ordeal, which has cast a long shadow over the international court.
The 56-year-old Khan was formally suspended from his duties at the ICC in June after the executive committee of the court’s oversight body concluded he had committed a “serious breach of duty and serious misconduct.” According to documents reviewed by the AP, the committee found he had engaged in a “sexual relationship … (that) escalated over time” and had attempted to stop the woman from coming forward with her complaints. Khan disputes those findings.
The decision now rests with the 125 member nations of the court’s oversight body, known as the Assembly of States Parties, which is holding a special session in New York. A majority vote in favor of a removal resolution would be needed to oust him.
Khan himself will not be in the room when the vote takes place. The Trump administration sanctioned him in connection with the ICC’s investigation into Israeli officials over the military’s actions in Gaza, effectively banning him from setting foot in the United States.
His legal team has raised sharp objections to his exclusion. “We know of no court or tribunal in any proper and fair legal system that bars a person facing the gravest professional sanction from being heard,” attorneys Tayab Ali and Sareta Ashraph wrote in a letter to the Assembly of States Parties, which was obtained by the AP.
Khan is also currently barred from practicing law in his home country. The British Bar Standards Board suspended him pending its own separate investigation into the allegations.
The result of the secret ballot is not yet known. The Netherlands, which serves as the host country for the ICC, has publicly stated it will vote to remove Khan. Netherlands Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen announced that position in a letter to parliament, making the Netherlands the only nation to have publicly declared how it will vote.
The misconduct case has become deeply entangled with the court’s investigation into the conflict in Gaza. “Political considerations have been folded into this, especially as it is the first time a prosecutor has pursued warrants against a western ally,” said Iva Vukusic, a researcher at Utrecht University who has been closely monitoring the proceedings.
The ICC issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of crimes against humanity. That move triggered significant backlash, including multiple rounds of sanctions from the Trump administration targeting Khan and other court personnel.
The drawn-out process has fractured the court internally at an already difficult time. “There has been splintering over how the court has handled this,” said Lucy Gaynor, a historian of international criminal tribunals at the University of Amsterdam.
In April, a group of staff members within the prosecutor’s office wrote to the oversight body expressing serious concerns about the possibility of Khan returning to his role, stating that his “leadership has been materially diminished.”
Just last week, a coalition of Palestinian organizations published a letter raising concerns about the investigation, accusing the executive committee of “unwarranted political interference” and “subverting the disciplinary process.”
If Khan is removed, a new prosecutor will need to be elected at a later date. In the meantime, his two deputy prosecutors are overseeing the office. Vukusic warned that no matter how the vote goes, “the court is going to walk away bruised and battered and wounded and less able to face the greater threats.”
Earlier this month, the United States — a long-standing critic of the court — announced a campaign aimed at dismantling the 24-year-old institution entirely.
