Member states of the International Criminal Court voted to fire Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan over sexual misconduct claims, ending a two-year fight that split the court’s own judges from its outside investigators.
Story Snapshot
- ICC member states voted by a wide margin to dismiss Khan at an emergency session in New York.
- A United Nations oversight body earlier found evidence backing the accuser’s claim of non-consensual contact.
- Three ICC judges reviewed that same evidence and said it did not meet the legal bar for misconduct.
- Britain’s legal watchdog separately suspended Khan’s law license and later rejected his appeal.
- Khan denies all the allegations and has called the process unlawful.
Member States Vote To Remove The Prosecutor
Representatives from the court’s 125 member countries met in an emergency session at United Nations headquarters in New York in late July 2026. They voted to dismiss Karim Khan after nearly two years of allegations and internal fighting over how to handle them. The vote followed a disciplinary process that started when Khan first took leave in May 2025.
Khan built his reputation by pursuing arrest warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That record made his removal unprecedented for the 24-year-old court, which had never suspended a sitting chief prosecutor before this case.
International Criminal Court (ICC) member states voted 82 to 13 to dismiss Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, following his suspension last month over allegations of serious misconduct and breach of duty.#TV1Updates pic.twitter.com/QqoA1VbTQq
— TV One Uganda (@Tv1uganda) July 25, 2026
Investigators And Judges Reached Different Conclusions
A United Nations internal oversight body investigated the claims against Khan and reportedly found evidence supporting the accuser, including signs of non-consensual sexual contact. That finding pushed the ICC’s governing body to suspend Khan in June 2026 while the case moved forward. A second woman also came forward with allegations against him in August 2025.
Three judges appointed to review the same evidence reached a different conclusion. They said the internal investigation’s findings did not establish misconduct or a breach of duty under the court’s legal standards. That gap between the oversight report and the judges’ review created confusion over whether Khan could return to work.
A Parallel Legal Fight In Britain
Khan is also a licensed barrister in the United Kingdom, and Britain’s Bar Standards Board suspended his ability to practice law there after reviewing the same misconduct claims. Khan appealed that suspension, but the regulator upheld it. The ban stayed in place through his final months at the ICC.
The Guardian reported earlier documentation suggesting Khan tried to pressure an accuser into withdrawing her claims. The paper said the woman at the center of the case stayed in contact with the Assembly of States Parties, giving that body direct information as it weighed his future.
Why This Case Matters Beyond One Prosecutor
The ICC prosecutes the world’s worst crimes, including genocide and war crimes. A misconduct scandal at the top damages the court’s credibility right when it faces pressure over politically sensitive cases involving major world leaders. Critics on both sides of the political spectrum have questioned whether the court can police itself fairly.
International Criminal Court (ICC) member states voted 82 to 13 to dismiss Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, following his suspension last month over allegations of serious misconduct and breach of duty.#TV1Updates pic.twitter.com/QqoA1VbTQq
— TV One Uganda (@Tv1uganda) July 25, 2026
Khan has consistently denied wrongdoing and argued through his lawyers that the suspension process was unlawful and lacked solid proof. His legal team could still pursue an appeal through the International Labour Organization’s Administrative Tribunal, which handles disputes for international bodies and could theoretically order reinstatement or compensation if it finds the process was flawed.
For now, the vote stands as the court’s final word. The case shows how slow and split international oversight can be, with two official processes reaching opposite conclusions on the same facts. That split leaves plenty of room for both sides to keep arguing about what really happened, even after the vote to remove him.
Sources:
france24.com, theguardian.com, nytimes.com, reuters.com, wsj.com, lemonde.fr