Khan’s lawyers described the proceedings as unlawful and unfair and said he would contest his dismissal through all available legal mechanisms.
By Corey Walker, The Algemeiner
Member states of the International Criminal Court voted on Friday to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office after finding that he had committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty, an unprecedented decision that comes as the court faces mounting scrutiny over its handling of the Israel-Hamas war and its internal governance.
Eighty-two of the court’s 125 member states voted to dismiss Khan during a special session of the ICC’s governing body, the Assembly of States Parties, at United Nations headquarters in New York.
It marked the first time in the court’s history that a sitting chief prosecutor had been removed from office.
Khan, who has denied wrongdoing and said he will challenge the decision, was accused of engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior lawyer in his office and attempting to prevent her from pursuing allegations against him.
The disciplinary proceedings followed an 18-month UN investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct involving the aide.
“The assembly decided by a majority of 82 states parties that the elected official, prosecutor Karim Khan, committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty … and to remove … Karim Khan from office,” Päivi Kaukoranta, president of the Assembly of States Parties, said after the vote.
Khan’s lawyers described the proceedings as unlawful and unfair and said he would contest his dismissal through all available legal mechanisms.
The unprecedented decision comes as the ICC remains at the center of an international controversy over its pursuit of Israeli leaders.
The court has faced intense criticism from Israel and the United States, neither of which is a party to the Rome Statute, over allegations that it has unfairly singled out the Jewish state while applying inconsistent standards to other conflicts.
On Nov. 21, 2024, an ICC pretrial chamber issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe the two Israeli leaders bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
Israel has vehemently rejected the allegations, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction, that Israel has facilitated large quantities of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, and that the warrants distort the conduct of a democratic country defending itself against a terrorist organization.
The court also issued a warrant that day for Hamas military commander Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, better known as Mohammed Deif, over alleged crimes committed during and after the Hamas-led massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The court withdrew Deif’s warrant in February 2025 after receiving evidence that he had been killed.
US and Israeli officials fiercely condemned the warrants, accusing the court of drawing a false moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the commanders of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization that launched the war with its Oct. 7 attack.
Although Khan’s removal represents a major institutional setback for the court, it will not invalidate its existing cases or arrest warrants.
Warrants are issued and withdrawn by ICC judges, not by the prosecutor acting alone, meaning those against Netanyahu and Gallant remain in force unless the judges decide otherwise.
“Khan thought his political witch hunt against Israel and outrageous arrest warrants would distract from serious sexual misconduct allegations. He was wrong,” Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, wrote on social media following the vote.
The scandal has intensified broader questions about the ICC’s credibility and governance.
Critics argue that the court’s work has become increasingly politicized and that its pursuit of officials from democratic US allies has undermined confidence in its impartiality.
Supporters maintain that the court must investigate alleged war crimes regardless of the identity or political alignment of those accused.
The United States has sharply criticized the ICC’s actions, arguing that the court threatens national sovereignty by asserting authority over citizens of countries that have not joined the Rome Statute.
Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a sweeping diplomatic campaign aimed at dismantling the ICC, accusing it of “waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles,” but through “the force of so-called international law.”
The State Department said the initiative would involve a “whole-of-government response” intended to systematically impair the court’s ability to operate.
It also said countries that reject US objections to the ICC while relying on American assistance could face heightened scrutiny.
Following Khan’s removal, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott welcomed the outcome but said it would not alter the administration’s broader campaign against the court.
“He is only one small cog in this irredeemably corrupt institution,” Pigott said. “Today’s outcome will have no impact on the United States’ plans to dismantle the ICC.”
In a separate development on Friday, Venezuela formally notified the United Nations of its decision to withdraw from the ICC, alleging that the court has displayed a geographical bias against countries in the Global South.
“Venezuela considers that the court’s actions reflect a demonstrated geographical bias, which has disproportionately concentrated its work on African and Latin American countries, to the detriment of the Global South,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Félix Plasencia said in a statement.
Venezuela’s withdrawal will not take effect immediately. Under the Rome Statute, it becomes effective one year after the United Nations receives formal notification.
Withdrawal also does not terminate a country’s obligations concerning investigations or proceedings that began before its departure took effect.
Khan’s dismissal leaves the court confronting two major challenges simultaneously: restoring confidence in its leadership following the misconduct findings and defending its legitimacy amid growing international opposition to some of its most politically sensitive investigations.
The removal also immediately begins the process of choosing a new prosecutor, although a successor is not expected to be elected until next year.
The post ICC chief prosecutor removed from office amid sexual misconduct scandal appeared first on World Israel News.