ICC Assembly Votes to Remove Prosecutor Karim Khan Amid Abuse Allegations
On Friday, the Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC) convened a closed session at United Nations headquarters in New York and voted to remove Karim Khan from his role as the Court’s prosecutor. Diplomatic sources told AFP that 82 of the 125 member states supported the motion, meeting the absolute‑majority threshold required for dismissal. Only 13 countries voted for Khan to remain in office, while 15 members abstained and several members abstained and a number of states were not present for the vote.
Background: The Allegations Against Karim Khan
The vote followed months of controversy after a female staffer, identified publicly only as “Sarah,” alleged that Khan sexually abused her while she served as his direct assistant. In a CNN interview aired last week, Sarah described a pattern of escalating behavior that culminated in physical assault, emphasizing the inherent power imbalance in their professional relationship.
“There is no way to do anything consensually when there is such a power imbalance… I think a lot of people don’t understand that Mr. Khan wasn’t just my boss, he was everyone’s boss.”
– Sarah, former assistant to Karim Khan (CNN, May 2025)
Khan, who has led the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor since 2021, has consistently denied the allegations. An internal investigation was launched in 2024, and in May 2025 Khan announced his resignation to focus on defending himself against the claims, though the resignation was not finalized pending the Assembly’s decision.
The Assembly’s Decision‑Making Process
The ICC’s governing body, the Assembly of States Parties, operates under the Rome Statute, which requires a two‑thirds majority of those present and voting to adopt substantive decisions, including the removal of the prosecutor. In this instance, the Assembly applied an absolute‑majority rule (more than half of all 125 members) as stipulated for disciplinary actions against senior officials.
Prior to the vote, Paivi Kaukoranta, chair of the Assembly’s Bureau, characterized the matter as a “complex and sensitive disciplinary issue” and urged members to respect the privacy and rights of all parties involved while upholding the Court’s institutional integrity.
Reactions from International Observers
Several experts warned that the outcome could affect the perception of the ICC’s independence.
- Stephan Rapp, former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, told AFP that failing to remove Khan “could be the end of the court,” arguing that retaining a prosecutor under serious misconduct allegations would damage the Court’s credibility and embolden political attacks, particularly from the United States.
- The Trump administration had earlier announced a campaign targeting the ICC, threatening additional sanctions and accusing the Court of threatening U.S. sovereignty. Rapp suggested that a perceived lack of accountability could fuel further U.S. hostility.
- Supporters of Khan, including some African and Latin American delegations, argued that the allegations remained unproven and that the vote risked politicizing judicial appointments. They stressed the importance of due process and cautioned against setting a precedent where prosecutors could be removed on the basis of unverified claims.
Implications for the ICC’s Ongoing Cases
Khan’s tenure featured several high‑profile prosecutions, most notably the 2024 request for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in the Gaza War. The ICC also issued warrants for senior Hamas leaders, many of whom have since been killed in the conflict.
Observers note that the removal of a prosecutor mid‑investigation could raise questions about the continuity of those cases. However, the Rome Statute provides for the appointment of an acting prosecutor by the Presidency of the Court until a successor is elected by the Assembly, aiming to ensure that judicial proceedings are not disrupted.
Looking Ahead
The Assembly is expected to convene shortly to nominate a new prosecutor. Candidates will need to demonstrate both legal expertise and a commitment to the Court’s core principles of independence, impartiality, and integrity. The outcome of this selection process will be closely watched by member states, human‑rights organizations, and governments that have expressed concerns about the ICC’s jurisdiction and perceived biases.
As the Court navigates this internal crisis, its ability to maintain credibility will depend on transparent handling of the allegations, adherence to procedural safeguards, and a clear demonstration that its judicial functions remain insulated from political pressure.
