International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Karim Khan is facing an unprecedented removal vote by member states following a protracted internal misconduct inquiry.
The 125 nations that belong to the Assembly of States Parties are meeting behind closed doors to decide whether to oust the court's top prosecutor. It takes an absolute majority—63 votes—to fire him. The situation is messy, deeply polarizing, and threatens to cripple the world's court of last resort at a moment when its workload is heavier than ever.
If you haven't been following every twist in The Hague over the past two years, here is a clear breakdown of what led to this vote, why the process is so contentious, and what it means for global legal accountability.
The Misconduct Allegations That Started the Crisis
The disciplinary process began when a female aide at the court's headquarters in The Hague accused Khan of sexual misconduct. According to reports, the staffer alleged that Khan engaged in coercive, non-consensual sexual contact and harassment between March 2023 and April 2024.
Khan, a prominent British barrister who took over as chief prosecutor in 2021, has repeatedly and vehemently denied all accusations. He maintains that he never acted improperly and suggested early on that the claims were part of a deliberate attempt to derail his office's work.
An initial internal review expanded into an investigation by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services. Later, an ad hoc panel of three judicial experts reviewed the resulting 150-page confidential report. In March, those judges issued a non-binding advisory opinion stating that while evidence showed inappropriate non-consensual contact occurred, it did not meet the legal threshold required to establish formal professional misconduct under tribunal standards.
That advisory opinion didn't put an end to the controversy.
In June, the court's 21-member executive committee overruled the judges' interpretation, suspended Khan from his duties, and declared that he had committed a serious breach of duty. That decision paved the way for the full 125-member assembly to vote on his permanent removal.
Geopolitics and Sanctions Have Twisted the Case
You can't separate this internal workplace dispute from the explosive geopolitical backdrop surrounding the court.
In late 2024, Khan made the historic decision to seek arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza, alongside warrants for top Hamas leaders. That move provoked immediate fallout from Washington and its allies.
The United States, which is not an ICC member state, responded aggressively. Under the Trump administration, Washington slapped personal financial sanctions and travel bans on Khan and several senior court officials.
Those sanctions created an extraordinary situation during the current removal proceedings.
Because the Assembly of States Parties chose to hold its special voting session at UN headquarters in New York, Khan couldn't even attend his own removal hearing in person. He is legally prohibited from entering US territory. His defense lawyers submitted written objections arguing that depriving an accused official of the right to address his judges in person violates basic principles of due process.
At the same time, the alleged victim—publicly identified only by her first name, Sara—came forward to clarify that her complaint was purely about workplace harassment. She publicly criticized external actors for weaponizing her case to score geopolitical points or discredit the Palestine investigation, emphasizing that workplace safety and international accountability shouldn't be pitted against each other.
A Fractured Tribunal and an Uncertain Path
The controversy has torn through the internal culture of the International Criminal Court.
Earlier this year, staff members within the prosecutor's office sent a formal letter to court oversight officials stating that Khan's internal authority had been "materially diminished" and expressing deep hesitation about his potential return. Meanwhile, external rights groups and legal scholars worry that overruling independent judicial panels sets a dangerous precedent for political interference in ICC governance.
Countries taking part in the secret ballot are split. The Netherlands, which hosts the tribunal in The Hague, publicly announced it would vote to remove Khan, citing the need for strict moral leadership at the top of international bodies. Other member states remain hesitant, cautious about handing a political victory to outside powers that actively oppose the court's jurisdiction.
While the vote takes place, Khan's two deputy prosecutors are managing daily operations. Regardless of whether the assembly hits the 63-vote threshold to dismiss him, the institution is entering a fragile era.
To stay informed as results and legal appeals unfold, keep an eye on these key indicators:
- Monitor official Assembly of States Parties press briefings for the verified tallies, as the vote itself is conducted by secret ballot.
- Track the status of active arrest warrants, including the Gaza and Ukraine dockets, to see if interim prosecutorial leadership alters case timelines.
- Watch for British regulatory decisions, since the UK Bar Standards Board holds an independent disciplinary proceeding regarding Khan's legal license in his home country.
