Diplomats from 125 nations gathered at United Nations headquarters in New York on Friday to decide the fate of Karim Khan, the embattled chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The secret ballot marks the first time in the court's 24-year history that a prosecutor has faced a formal removal vote — the culmination of a saga that has dragged on for more than two years and exposed deep fractures within the global tribunal.
Khan, a 56-year-old British barrister, was formally suspended from his duties in June after the executive committee of the court's oversight body, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), concluded he had committed a "serious breach of duty and serious misconduct" by engaging in a sexual relationship with a female aide that "escalated over time," and by attempting to prevent the woman from pursuing her allegations. An earlier UN investigation had similarly found evidence of "nonconsensual sexual contact" on multiple occasions, though a three-judge panel later ruled that investigation was not conclusive. Khan has steadfastly denied all wrongdoing throughout the process. A majority of the ASP's 125 member states must support a resolution to permanently remove him. The Netherlands, the court's host country, is the only nation to have publicly declared its position — in favour of removal.
Khan was absent from Friday's closed-door session, barred from entering the United States after the Trump administration sanctioned him over the ICC's investigation into Israeli officials for their conduct in the Gaza conflict. The court issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister for crimes against humanity — a decision that triggered significant international backlash and multiple rounds of US sanctions against Khan and other court staff. His lawyers have sharply criticised his exclusion from the proceedings. "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," his legal team wrote in a letter to the ASP. Khan was additionally suspended by the British Bar Standards Board in June, pending its own investigation, leaving him barred from practising law in his home country.
The case has become deeply entangled in geopolitics. Some supporters argue Khan was targeted politically precisely because he pursued arrest warrants against a Western ally's leadership. Researchers tracking the process note the difficulty of disentangling the legal and political threads. "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. Meanwhile, divisions have emerged within the court itself — staff members in the prosecutor's office have written to the ASP warning that Khan's "leadership has been materially diminished," while Palestinian organisations have separately accused the executive committee of "unwarranted political interference" in the disciplinary process.
The outcome of the vote remains unclear. Should Khan be removed, his replacement would need to be elected at a later date; his office is currently managed by his two deputy prosecutors. Whatever the result, analysts warn the institution will emerge weakened. "The court is going to walk away bruised and battered and wounded and less able to face the greater threats," Vukusic said — a sobering assessment for a body already confronting an active US campaign aimed at dismantling it entirely.