ICC Member States Vote to Remove Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan

Verified key facts

• ICC member states voted on 24 July 2026 to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan.
• Diplomatic sources cited by NPR reported 82 of 125 members backed removal by secret ballot.
• It is the first dismissal of a sitting ICC chief prosecutor in the court's history.
• Khan denies misconduct; his lawyers called the process procedurally unfair.
• The vote triggers an election for a new prosecutor amid pending high-profile cases.

What happened

The International Criminal Court's governing body voted on 24 July to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan. It was the first time in the court's history that member states have ousted a sitting prosecutor. The decision was taken at a session of the Assembly of States Parties, which oversees the tribunal in The Hague.

According to diplomatic sources cited by NPR, 82 of the court's 125 member states backed removal in a secret ballot. That total passed the absolute majority of 63 required. Reporting indicated 13 members voted against and 15 abstained, underlining a divided but decisive outcome.

Khan had been the subject of an external inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct involving a female aide. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Middle East Eye reported that his lawyers described the removal process as illegal, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence.

The secret ballot format allowed governments to register their positions without public attribution. That approach can ease diplomatic pressure on states wary of taking sides openly, and it produced a clear margin well above the threshold required.

How the court reached this point

The allegations first surfaced in 2024 and prompted Khan to step aside temporarily while an inquiry proceeded. Pressure built for a definitive resolution as the case dragged on and cast a shadow over the prosecutor's office during a period of intense scrutiny.

The inquiry was handled outside the court's ordinary structures to preserve its independence. As findings emerged, member states faced a choice between allowing Khan to complete his term and moving to remove him under the Rome Statute's provisions for serious misconduct.

The Assembly of States Parties rarely intervenes in the conduct of individual officials. Its willingness to hold a removal vote reflects the seriousness of the findings. It also reflects the reputational stakes for an institution that asks governments to accept its authority over grave crimes.

The court had already been operating under strain, including sanctions imposed by the United States on officials over investigations Washington opposed. Adding an internal leadership crisis to that external pressure left the institution navigating challenges on several fronts at once.

• The prosecutor's office leads investigations into genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• Member states fund the court and are expected to enforce its arrest warrants.
• A prolonged leadership vacuum can slow active cases and weaken cooperation.

Key actors

Khan, a British barrister, took office in 2021 and pursued several politically charged files, including warrants tied to the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. His tenure raised the court's profile and drew sharp responses from governments named in its investigations.

The Assembly of States Parties includes 125 nations that have ratified the Rome Statute. Major powers including the United States, China, Russia and India are not members, a gap that has long constrained the court's global reach and its ability to enforce decisions.

Deputy prosecutors have handled day-to-day work since Khan stepped aside. They are expected to keep active investigations moving while states organise a process to choose a permanent successor.

The outcome also matters for governments that have championed the court as a pillar of international law. European states in particular have invested political capital in its work, and they now share responsibility for restoring confidence in its leadership.

Why it matters

The prosecutor sets the direction of the court's most consequential cases. Removing the office holder during live investigations raises questions about continuity, morale and the confidence of witnesses who cooperate with sensitive inquiries.

Supporters of the vote argue that credible accountability must begin at home, and that a court demanding integrity from states cannot ignore findings against its own leadership. They frame the decision as a test the institution had to pass.

Critics warn that a contested removal could be exploited by governments hostile to the court, who may cite the turmoil to dismiss its work as politicised. The dispute over process, rather than the underlying allegations, is likely to feature in that argument.

The court's credibility rests heavily on the perception that it applies the same standards to everyone. For many supporters, addressing misconduct within its own ranks was essential to preserving that authority, even at the cost of a bruising public episode.

The complainant's account and the handling of her allegations also drew attention to how international institutions treat internal grievances. Advocates said the case would test whether such bodies can protect staff who come forward against senior figures.

What comes next

The dismissal immediately opens a search for a new chief prosecutor, a nomination and election process that member states run through the Assembly. Previous searches have taken many months and involved detailed vetting of candidates.

In the interim, senior officials in the prosecutor's office are expected to maintain existing cases. Legal challenges from Khan's team could also continue, keeping questions about the fairness of the process before the public and diplomats.

Candidates for the top job typically emerge from senior prosecutorial and judicial backgrounds. States will weigh legal experience against the need for someone who can command broad trust across a divided membership during a difficult period.

The court now faces the task of demonstrating that its core function endures beyond any single official. How quickly and transparently it selects a successor will shape perceptions of whether the institution has been strengthened or shaken by the vote.

Sources

• NPR - ICC member states vote to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan (24 Jul 2026)
• Middle East Eye - ICC member states remove prosecutor Karim Khan by majority vote (24 Jul 2026)
• HNGN - ICC member states vote to remove chief prosecutor over misconduct findings (25 Jul 2026)