By Stephanie van den Berg and Anthony Deutsch
THE HAGUE, June 12 (Reuters) – This week’s suspension of International Criminal Court lead prosecutor Karim Khan for alleged sexual misconduct sets the court up for months of potentially damaging wrangling while U.S. antagonism and divisions between member states grow.
The outspoken Briton attracted approval and hostility in equal measure, to say nothing of U.S. sanctions, for spearheading a quest for arrest warrants for Israeli officials over Israel’s conduct in Gaza and for some leaders of its Palestinian adversary Hamas.
His suspension was a relief to the complainants and ICC member states arguing that the court must set an example in its handling of workplace harassment.
But as Khan, 56, stands his ground, arguing that he is being wronged and also attacked for political reasons, other ICC member states look at the landmark investigations he has spearheaded and fear they would falter without him.
ICC AND KHAN UNDER PRESSURE OVER ISRAEL
“The pressure on the ICC is real, and the allegations have been instrumentalised, conflated with the court’s investigations into alleged crimes committed on the occupied Palestinian Territories, to undermine the court,” said Danya Chaikel of the human rights watchdog FIDH.
Those cases have potential to dispel long-standing suggestions that the ICC, which has brought most of its successful prosecutions in Africa, does not have the stomach to challenge more powerful interests in richer northern countries.
And African states account for a large share of Khan’s support as the 125 member countries prepare to decide whether or not to dismiss the court’s highest-profile official outright.
A summary seen by Reuters said a confidential 18-month U.N. investigation into Khan had found a “factual basis” for the allegations made by a female aide that he had had a non-consensual sexual relationship with a younger staff member. It found that witness accounts “lend support to her claims”.
However, a legal review of that report by a panel of three external judges, a summary of which Reuters also saw, found the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
On Monday, a confidential poll was held among a core group of 21 member states, the “Bureau of the Assembly”. It suspended Khan and sent the case on to the full Assembly of States Parties, the only body that can dismiss Khan.
Two sources briefed on the vote told Reuters that two-thirds found Khan had engaged in “serious misconduct” and “serious breach of duty”.
One diplomatic source said 14 countries had voted against Khan: Belgium, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, Switzerland, Brazil and New Zealand.
Four African countries – Kenya, Senegal, South Africa and Sierra Leone – voted for acquittal, while Uganda, Bosnia and Bolivia abstained.
One African diplomat who is backing Khan and spoke on condition of anonymity said Khan’s opponents had won a battle, but this did not mean the move to dismiss him would receive the required 63 votes in the Assembly.
ICC VOTE ON KHAN’S FUTURE MAY BE MONTHS AWAY
An Assembly vote is not expected before late July at the earliest and possibly after the summer, according to three diplomatic sources, giving plenty of time for divisions to become public and tarnish the court’s image.
It is a battle the ICC could do without as it battles Washington. The U.S. is not an ICC member and has imposed sanctions on 11 ICC judges and prosecutors, including Khan, for issuing arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and for a past probe into U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The ICC, the world’s first permanent war crimes court, opened in 2002 to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by nationals of member states or on the territory of its members.
After the allegations against Khan emerged in 2024, it commissioned an external U.N. investigation. In May 2025, Khan went on voluntary leave and his two deputies assumed his duties.
Khan’s legal team has said it will now “take all necessary steps to challenge the decision, protect his rights, and ensure that due process is upheld”.
It says the external panel’s findings should have cleared him, but that instead “an executive and political body” has taken over the process.
(Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg and Anthony Deutsch; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Comments