ICC Member States Vote Friday on Removing Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan Over Misconduct Claims

An Unprecedented Vote

Member states of the International Criminal Court will vote Friday on whether to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office, according to Reuters.

Removing Khan requires an absolute majority, at least 63 of the court's 125 member states, in a secret ballot scheduled for around 3 p.m. at UN headquarters in New York, Reuters reported. Khan, 56, has been barred from attending the session, according to his lawyer Tayab Ali.

What Khan Is Accused Of

A junior ICC staffer identified only by her first name, Sara, has accused Khan of a non-consensual sexual relationship. She spoke publicly for the first time in an interview with CNN, saying "there is no way for something to be consensual when you have such a power disparity," according to Reuters.

Khan's lawyers told Reuters he denies "any sexual relationship of any kind" with his accuser. Sara has also said, according to The National, that her complaint was genuine but had been "weaponised by parties with their own agendas" — a direct acknowledgment that her allegation has become entangled in a much bigger political fight.

The Judges Said the Evidence Didn't Meet the Bar

A UN internal oversight office compiled a 150-page report on the allegations. A panel of three independent judges was then asked to review it.

According to The National, those judges found Khan engaged in "non-consensual sexual contact" but concluded the evidence did not meet the legal standard required to establish misconduct. A formal panel looked at the same facts and said the proof didn't clear the bar.

Despite that non-binding finding, the ICC's 21-state governing body voted in June to suspend Khan anyway, setting up Friday's removal vote, The National reported. Khan's lawyers argue that overruling the judges' own conclusion makes the process "unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence," per Reuters.

A reasonable person can look at that sequence and ask: if the judges commissioned specifically to evaluate this evidence said it didn't meet the legal threshold, why did the governing body override them and push toward removal anyway? Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen and Justice Minister David van Weel told the Dutch Parliament, in a letter viewed by The National, that the decision was based on the full UN investigation, underlying documents, the judges' advice, and written submissions — not just the judges' conclusion alone. Those documents remain confidential, so outside observers can't independently verify that justification.

The U.S. Pressure Campaign Is Real and Documented

This case isn't happening in a vacuum. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a "sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty," according to The Independent. Rubio said he'd pressure member states to withdraw from the court, sanction groups that work with it, and bar its staff from the U.S.

The Trump administration sanctioned Khan and a dozen other ICC staff after Khan sought arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza, per The Independent. Israel isn't an ICC member and has called those warrants bogus.

The sanctions barred Khan from entering the U.S. and cut off access to basic financial services, effectively keeping him out of New York even for his own removal hearing, according to Reuters and The Independent.

Former EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell put it bluntly, telling The National: "The Trump administration and Netanyahu want the same thing: to ensure that no international court can touch soldiers, border agents, or its chosen allies." This is Borrell's characterization, not an established fact. No evidence has been presented showing direct coordination between Washington and Jerusalem on the misconduct vote itself.

Where Member States Stand

Media reports cited by The National indicate Western nations largely favor removing Khan, with the Netherlands, which hosts the ICC, publicly backing his ouster last week. Since the vote is secret, there's no way to independently confirm vote counts beforehand.

The Court's Credibility Problem Either Way

Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, told Reuters the situation is layered: "The court is already in a precarious state... The Khan situation is a separate but very significant part of the overall perception of the court's credibility."

If Khan is removed, critics will say it validates the idea that political pressure, not evidence, drove the outcome. If he survives, Reuters reports his position would be permanently weakened, and critics of the process will argue the court failed to hold its own chief prosecutor accountable for conduct a UN investigation flagged as serious.

Separately, Britain's Bar Standards Board upheld a suspension of Khan's license to practice law in the UK on July 14, following a hearing, according to The Independent. That disciplinary process is unrelated to Friday's ICC vote and remains ongoing.

If member states vote to remove Khan, the ICC will need to launch a new prosecutor election, a process Reuters reports isn't expected to conclude before the start of next year, leaving the court effectively rudderless on its highest-profile cases during that gap.