ICC votes 82–13 to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan

The International Criminal Court removed its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, on Friday, July 25, 2026, after 82 of the court’s 125 member states voted by secret ballot to dismiss him for sexual misconduct — the first time in the ICC’s 24-year history that a chief prosecutor has been ousted from office.

The ruling, announced at a closed special session at United Nations headquarters in New York, severs the tenure of a British barrister who had simultaneously become the court’s most polarizing figure and its most politically embattled — having sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched investigations in Ukraine and Sudan, and fought off US sanctions, all while allegations of abuse mounted inside his own office. His removal leaves the ICC’s most consequential open dossiers without an elected head, and the court’s statute offers no clear roadmap for replacing him ahead of a scheduled election no earlier than 2027.

What the vote decided

The 82-to-13 result — with 15 abstentions — cleared the absolute-majority threshold of 63 votes required for dismissal under the Rome Statute, according to diplomatic sources cited by The Associated Press and Middle East Eye. Päivi Kaukoranta, president of the Assembly of States Parties, the ICC’s governing body, confirmed the tally in a live statement broadcast on UN Web TV, saying member states found that Khan had committed “serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty” by engaging in “prohibited conduct against a subordinate staff member.”

The allegation, first reported by the AP in a series of investigative stories beginning in 2024, centered on Khan’s conduct toward a female aide publicly known only as Sarah. According to documents seen by the AP, Khan engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with the woman and attempted to impede her from pursuing the allegations. The 56-year-old Khan has steadfastly denied the findings. His lawyers, in a written submission before the vote, called the entire proceeding “illegal, procedurally unfair, and not supported by evidence.” Khan’s position is not reflected in any independent assessment made available to the assembly.

The ICC had commissioned the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services to conduct an external inquiry into the allegations in November 2024. Khan stepped back voluntarily in May 2025 to allow the investigation to proceed. In June 2026, the Assembly’s bureau — a 21-member executive committee — voted by qualified majority to suspend him with immediate effect and refer the matter to the full membership for a final decision, setting the stage for Friday’s special session.

What’s at stake for active cases

Khan’s removal does not extinguish the court’s pending investigations, but it compounds the institutional strain on an already beleaguered tribunal. The most scrutinized open matters include arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant — issued by ICC judges in connection with the Gaza conflict — as well as ongoing investigations into alleged war crimes in Ukraine, Sudan, and Myanmar.

Critically, the arrest warrants themselves remain legally intact. As Eastern Herald reported before the vote, warrants are issued by ICC judges acting independently of the prosecutor’s office; only judges have authority to withdraw them. Netanyahu remains a wanted figure in 124 of the court’s 125 member states regardless of who occupies the prosecutor’s chair.

What the leadership vacuum does affect is the strategic direction of the Office of the Prosecutor — which investigations it advances, at what pace, and with what resources. Deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang have managed day-to-day operations since May 2025, when Karim Khan took his voluntary leave, the AP reported. Friday’s formal removal converts that interim arrangement into an indefinite one. The ICC’s Rome Statute contains no provision for electing a mid-term replacement, and no election is scheduled before 2027, according to reporting by the AP and Mezha.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, used the occasion to reframe the trajectory of the Gaza cases. “Karim Khan believed that by launching a political witch hunt against Israel and issuing a politically motivated arrest warrant against Prime Minister Netanyahu, the world would ignore the grave sexual misconduct allegations against him,” Danon said in a statement. “He was wrong.” Whether the new prosecutor — once elected — continues the Gaza investigation with the same intensity is a question the court’s member states have not yet answered.

Human Rights Watch’s international justice director, Liz Evenson, focused her reaction on the court’s internal culture rather than the geopolitics. “The ICC should hold itself to the highest standards. This includes ensuring a safe workplace with effective and credible mechanisms available to staff or others who experience abuse, including sexual violence or harassment,” Evenson said in a statement provided to the AP.

A court already under siege

The removal lands at a moment when the ICC faces pressure from multiple directions. The Trump administration signed Executive Order 14203 on February 6, 2025, imposing sanctions on ICC officials — with Khan as the initial target — over the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants. By 2025, Washington had sanctioned nine ICC personnel in total, including judges, according to UN News. Khan’s US visa was revoked, and his family members were barred from entry into the United States. The US has called for the court’s dismantlement.

The intertwining of the misconduct case and the Gaza investigation did not go unnoticed by analysts and rights groups. As PBS NewsHour reported, experts noted that “political considerations have been folded into this, especially as it is the first time a prosecutor” has faced removal proceedings of this kind. France and the Netherlands — the country that hosts the ICC in The Hague — announced publicly before Friday’s session that they would vote to remove Khan, signaling that the court’s most important European backers were prepared to prioritize institutional credibility over continuity.

It remains unclear whether Khan will mount any legal challenge to the removal, or whether he will seek any form of appeal before a judicial body. His legal team’s pre-vote filing argued the assembly lacked the procedural authority to act as it did, a claim the assembly did not publicly address before casting ballots.

Sources for this article include reporting by the Associated Press — including the bylined investigation by Molly Quell, Edith M. Lederer, and Farnoush Amiri — Middle East Eye, UN News, and Eastern Herald, which provided contemporaneous coverage of the vote and its background.

The Assembly of States Parties is expected to begin the formal process of nominating a successor prosecutor. No timeline for that election has been announced. The deputy prosecutors, Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang, are expected to continue leading the Office of the Prosecutor until a permanent replacement is confirmed.