The institution that exists to hold the powerful accountable now finds itself struggling to hold itself together.
At the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the institution built to hold the world's most powerful actors accountable now faces a reckoning of its own. Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan has been suspended pending a vote by 125 member states on allegations of sexual misconduct — allegations he firmly denies — following a thirteen-month UN investigation that produced over five thousand pages of evidence. The crisis arrives as the court already weathers sanctions from the United States and political pressure over its pursuit of warrants against Israeli leaders, leaving an institution whose authority rests entirely on moral credibility struggling to demonstrate it can govern itself.
- A court designed to prosecute the world's worst offenders now cannot agree on whether its own chief prosecutor should remain in his post.
- Five thousand pages of testimony and evidence have been gathered, yet Khan's legal team insists the entire process is unlawful, procedurally compromised, and built on insufficient grounds.
- Staff inside the Office of the Prosecutor have warned that Khan's potential return could trigger retaliation and erode what remains of institutional trust.
- A special session of all 125 member states must now convene, requiring a two-thirds supermajority just to confirm misconduct — a high bar that leaves the outcome genuinely uncertain.
- Even a successful removal vote may not be the end: Khan could appeal to an international labour tribunal, opening the door to reinstatement, compensation claims, and years of further legal conflict.
Karim Khan, the British lawyer who rose to lead the International Criminal Court's prosecutorial arm, was suspended from his post on Tuesday as 125 member states prepare to vote on his future. The ICC's management body acted immediately, citing the findings of a sweeping misconduct investigation. Khan denies all allegations. His lawyers have condemned the suspension as unlawful and procedurally unjust.
The road to this moment stretches back to May 2024, when a third party reported allegations of sexual misconduct involving a female staff member. An initial investigation stalled after the alleged victim declined to participate, and the case was closed for lack of evidence — a conclusion that drew criticism and deepened doubts about the court's ability to police itself. A second referral in October 2024 prompted the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services to launch a broader inquiry. Over thirteen months, investigators assembled more than five thousand pages of evidence and testimony. A panel of three judges reviewed the findings and advised the ICC's Bureau, which determined that suspension was warranted.
The crisis lands against a backdrop of extraordinary external pressure. In the same month the first allegations emerged, Khan had sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The United States responded with sanctions against Khan, later expanded to include judges, deputy prosecutors, and Palestinian organisations that had provided evidence to the court. The ICC now finds itself embattled from within and without.
A special session will be convened as soon as possible. A two-thirds majority of member states would be required to uphold a misconduct finding, with a separate vote needed for removal. Staff inside the prosecutor's office have voiced fears about retaliation should Khan return. His supporters argue the evidence never met the threshold required. If removed, Khan could still challenge the outcome before an international labour tribunal — a process that could take years and potentially result in reinstatement or significant compensation. The institution that exists to hold others to account must now account for itself.
Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, walked into suspension on Tuesday with his career in the hands of 125 member states and his reputation in tatters. The ICC's management body moved with immediate effect to remove him from his post while an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct runs its course. Khan denies everything. His lawyers have called the suspension unlawful, procedurally unfair, and unsupported by evidence. But the machinery of institutional accountability, once set in motion, does not stop easily.
The path to this moment began in May 2024, when a third party reported to the ICC that Khan had engaged in sexual misconduct involving a female staff member. The court's Independent Oversight Mechanism opened an investigation, but it stalled when the alleged victim declined to participate. Investigators concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims, and the case closed. Critics argued the process had been bungled, that the investigation itself had damaged confidence in the institution's ability to police itself.
Then, in October 2024, a second referral arrived. This time the matter went to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, which launched a broader inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of authority. That investigation ran for thirteen months, from November 2024 through December 2025, and produced more than five thousand pages of evidence and testimony. A panel of three judges then reviewed the OIOS findings and advised the ICC's Bureau on whether Khan's conduct constituted serious misconduct, less serious misconduct, or no misconduct at all. The Bureau, acting on that advice, decided suspension was warranted.
Khan, a prominent British lawyer, had already been on voluntary leave since May 2025 to fight the allegations. Now the decision moves to the full membership of the court. A special session will be convened as soon as possible, where the 125 member states will vote on his future. A two-thirds majority would be required to uphold any finding of misconduct, followed by a separate vote on removal from office. The Bureau stressed that the suspension does not prejudge the outcome. Khan's lawyers have rejected the decision in the strongest terms.
The timing of this crisis reveals the court under siege from multiple directions. In May 2024, the same month the first allegations surfaced, Khan had sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes in Gaza. The United States responded by imposing sanctions on Khan. Those sanctions were later expanded to include two deputy prosecutors, eight ICC judges, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Palestinian organisations that had provided evidence to the court. The United States, Russia, and Israel are not ICC members, but the court can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by their nationals on the territory of member states.
Inside the Office of the Prosecutor, staff members have warned that Khan's return could damage confidence in the institution and have expressed concerns about possible retaliation. Supporters of Khan counter that the investigation failed to substantiate the allegations against him. The controversy has left the court under intense scrutiny, its legitimacy questioned from within and without.
If the member states vote to remove Khan, the fight may not end there. He could challenge the decision before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, which hears employment-related appeals involving ICC staff. A lengthy legal battle could follow, with the possibility of reinstatement and significant compensation if a tribunal found the disciplinary process had been flawed. The institution that exists to hold the powerful accountable now finds itself struggling to hold itself together.
Notable Quotes
Khan's lawyers described the decision as unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence— Khan's legal team
Staff members warned that Khan's return could damage confidence in the institution and expressed concerns about possible retaliation— ICC Office of the Prosecutor staff
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Khan was on voluntary leave before the suspension? Doesn't that suggest he was already stepping back?
Voluntary leave is a choice. Suspension is not. One preserves the appearance of cooperation; the other is institutional force. The distinction matters because it signals how serious the court's leadership believes the allegations to be.
The investigation took thirteen months and produced five thousand pages. That sounds thorough. Why are his lawyers claiming it was unfair?
Thoroughness and fairness are not the same thing. They're arguing about process—how evidence was gathered, who was heard, what standards were applied. A massive investigation can still be procedurally flawed. That's precisely why he can appeal to an international labor tribunal if he's removed.
What's the real risk here for the ICC as an institution?
If Khan is removed and then wins on appeal, the court looks incompetent and vindictive. If he stays and the allegations are later proven true, the court looks corrupt. Either way, confidence erodes. That's why staff are worried about retaliation—they're caught between a prosecutor they may not trust and an institution that may not protect them.
Does the U.S. sanctions campaign against Khan change how we should read this investigation?
It complicates the narrative. You can't separate the misconduct allegations from the political pressure over Netanyahu. That doesn't mean the allegations are false. But it means people will always wonder whether the investigation was influenced by geopolitics, whether the timing was convenient, whether the court is being weaponized.
What happens if the member states vote to keep him?
He returns to work, but the damage is done. Staff morale is shattered. His authority is compromised. The court's credibility takes a hit either way. The institution survives, but it's weakened.