THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Member nations of the International Criminal Court are preparing to cast a secret ballot Friday on whether to permanently remove the court’s top prosecutor from his position, as growing concerns surface about the lasting damage the prolonged scandal has caused to the already-struggling institution.
British barrister Karim Khan, 56, has spent more than two years at the center of a controversy after being accused of sexual misconduct involving a female member of his staff — a series of allegations first reported by The Associated Press. Khan has consistently and firmly denied the claims.
The slow-moving and complex process has created deep rifts between human rights organizations, court employees, and member countries — all at a moment when the court is already under significant pressure, including an active effort by the United States to, in its own words, “dismantle” the ICC. The court was created to hold accountable those responsible for the world’s most serious crimes.
Khan was formally suspended from his duties in June after the executive committee of the court’s oversight body determined he had committed “serious misconduct.” Documents reviewed by The Associated Press indicated that Khan had engaged in a sexual relationship with the woman and attempted to block her from coming forward with her allegations. Khan rejects those conclusions.
“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 comments to The Associated Press.
Organizations that have long championed the court’s mission have found themselves on opposite sides of the debate. Last week, a coalition of Palestinian organizations released a public letter accusing the executive committee of “unwarranted political interference” and claiming it lacks “the independence, impartiality or legal expertise to make assessments.”
Back in June, the International Federation for Human Rights, Redress, and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice — along with other groups — stated that the alleged victim had been “publicly questioned, instrumentalized, and too readily dismissed as part of a political agenda.”
Staff inside the prosecutor’s office have also raised alarms. A group of employees sent a letter to the oversight body expressing deep concern about the possibility of Khan returning to his role, stating that his “leadership has been materially diminished.”
High-profile international voices have weighed in as well. Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell wrote in an opinion piece for Project Syndicate that the allegations amount to a plot against the court. “Khan’s enemies have managed to start a debate about his potential removal, with allegations of sexual misconduct serving as the tip of the spear,” wrote the Spanish diplomat.
Taking a sharply different view, Kenneth Roth, who formerly led Human Rights Watch, posted on social media that Khan “clearly does not” possess “the moral authority and credibility to continue serving as prosecutor.”
Khan himself has sat for multiple interviews denying the accusations, claiming they are part of a coordinated effort to undermine him because of his investigations into Israeli officials. In a CNN interview last week, however, the female staffer at the center of the case flatly rejected that characterization. A United Nations investigation report reviewed by the AP found that “multiple credible witnesses dismissed the notion that she was a spy.”
The decision on Khan’s future now rests with the 125 countries that form the court’s governing body, the Assembly of States Parties, which is holding a special session in New York. A majority vote would be required to pass a resolution removing him from office.
The outcome remains uncertain. The Netherlands, which hosts the court, and France are the only two countries to have publicly announced they will vote in favor of removal.
In a letter to parliament last week, Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen suggested that enough support exists to remove Khan. “Although the balance of power within the ASP is still evolving, the position of most contracting parties also appears to be in line with the recommendation of the ASP Office,” he wrote.
The court faces turbulent times ahead regardless of the vote’s outcome. The Trump administration, which has already imposed sanctions on key ICC personnel including Khan, is pushing to further destabilize the 24-year-old court, which it views as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Whatever member states decide, “the court is going to walk away bruised and battered and wounded and less able to face the greater threats,” said Iva Vukusic, a researcher at Utrecht University who has closely tracked the proceedings, in comments to the AP.
