ICC removes Karim Khan as prosecutor while Putin and Netanyahu warrants remain active

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has entered an unprecedented leadership transition after 82 member states voted to remove Prosecutor Karim Khan over findings of serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty, making Karim Khan the first serving prosecutor dismissed in the court’s history.

The Assembly of States Parties approved the removal at a special session held at United Nations headquarters in New York on July 24, 2026. The decision immediately ended Karim Khan’s term and activated the process for selecting a new prosecutor, although a permanent successor is not expected to be elected before 2027.

Karim Khan denied wrongdoing and rejected the findings against him. Karim Khan’s legal representative said the former prosecutor intended to challenge the lawfulness and fairness of the disciplinary process through every available legal mechanism.

The leadership change does not cancel active International Criminal Court investigations, cases or arrest warrants. Warrants involving Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant remain in force because only International Criminal Court judges can withdraw or amend judicial orders.

Deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang will continue leading the Office of the Prosecutor. The two deputy prosecutors have managed the office since Karim Khan began a leave of absence in May 2025 while the allegations against him were investigated.

The dismissal creates a major institutional test for a court already facing sanctions, political attacks, enforcement failures and accusations of selective justice. The International Criminal Court must now demonstrate that internal accountability can strengthen rather than paralyse investigations involving some of the world’s most powerful political and military figures.

Why did 82 International Criminal Court member states vote to remove Karim Khan?

The Assembly of States Parties concluded that Karim Khan had committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of the duties attached to the office of prosecutor. Eighty-two of the International Criminal Court’s 125 member states supported removal, providing the absolute majority required under the Rome Statute.

The vote followed a disciplinary process involving allegations made by a female lawyer who worked in the Office of the Prosecutor. The allegations concerned an inappropriate and non-consensual sexual relationship and claims that Karim Khan attempted to discourage the woman from formally pursuing her complaint.

Karim Khan denied having a sexual relationship with the employee and denied committing misconduct. Karim Khan’s lawyers also challenged the procedures used during the inquiry and argued that the former prosecutor had not received a fair opportunity to defend himself before member states.

The Assembly of States Parties nevertheless accepted the recommendation of its governing bureau and removed Karim Khan. Päivi Kaukoranta, President of the Assembly of States Parties, confirmed that the required majority had determined that the conduct met the legal threshold for dismissal.

The Rome Statute permits the removal of a prosecutor who is found to have committed serious misconduct, seriously breached official duties or become unable to perform the functions required by the office. A decision involving the prosecutor requires an absolute majority of all member states, rather than only a majority of countries present and voting.

The 82-state majority gave the decision clear institutional authority. The outcome was particularly significant because some governments had feared that political divisions surrounding Gaza, Ukraine and United States sanctions would prevent the Assembly of States Parties from reaching a decisive result.

The vote demonstrated that member states were prepared to separate Karim Khan’s personal disciplinary case from the politically sensitive investigations pursued during his tenure. That distinction will be essential if the court is to maintain confidence among victims, governments and organisations supporting international criminal justice.

What did the disciplinary process conclude and how has Karim Khan responded?

Karim Khan had been on leave since May 2025 while an external investigation examined the allegations. The extended absence left the Office of the Prosecutor under deputy leadership for more than a year before member states reached the final removal decision.

The governing bureau concluded that the misconduct was sufficiently serious to make Karim Khan’s continued leadership untenable. The Assembly of States Parties then convened a special session to determine whether the finding justified formal removal under the Rome Statute.

Karim Khan maintained that he had not engaged in any sexual relationship with the employee and rejected suggestions that he had attempted to interfere with the complaint. Karim Khan’s legal team also questioned whether the disciplinary rules had been applied consistently and fairly.

Karim Khan was not convicted of a criminal offence through the Assembly process. The July 24 decision was an institutional and disciplinary determination concerning whether Karim Khan remained fit to hold elected office at the International Criminal Court.

That legal distinction is important. Removal from office does not itself establish criminal liability, while denial of criminal wrongdoing does not prevent an employer or international organisation from reaching a disciplinary finding under a different evidentiary and procedural standard.

Karim Khan’s planned challenge could prolong the dispute even though the dismissal has taken effect. The Rome Statute does not provide a conventional appeal mechanism through which a removed prosecutor can ask International Criminal Court judges to reverse the political decision of member states.

Any employment-related legal challenge would therefore focus on procedural fairness, applicable staff protections or other administrative mechanisms. Such action could produce further findings about how the investigation was conducted, but it would not automatically restore Karim Khan to office.

The International Criminal Court must now manage the consequences without allowing the dispute to dominate the prosecution office indefinitely. The court’s credibility will depend on protecting the rights of the complainant, respecting Karim Khan’s right to challenge the process and ensuring that ongoing investigations continue without interference.

Who will lead the ICC prosecution office while member states select a successor?

Deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang will continue directing the leadership, management and administration of the Office of the Prosecutor. The two officials have already performed those functions since Karim Khan took leave in May 2025.

The existing arrangement reduces the danger of an immediate operational vacuum. Investigators, trial lawyers and analysts can continue working on situations already before the court while member states begin the lengthy process of identifying and electing a new prosecutor.

The Office of the Prosecutor operates independently from the International Criminal Court’s judges. Prosecutors investigate alleged crimes, gather evidence and apply for warrants or summonses, while judges decide whether legal thresholds have been met.

The deputy prosecutors can continue supervising investigations and litigation, but a prolonged period without an elected prosecutor may complicate strategic decisions. Sensitive cases often require choices concerning resources, priorities, cooperation agreements and the timing of public applications.

Selecting a successor could take many months. Karim Khan’s 2021 election followed a process lasting approximately 18 months, and civil society organisations criticised that selection for weaknesses in background checks and candidate scrutiny.

Member states now face pressure to develop a more rigorous process. The next prosecutor must possess substantial experience in international criminal law, management and investigations, while also meeting the Rome Statute requirement of high moral character.

The selection will also be politically difficult. Governments may support candidates based on regional representation, legal philosophy, attitudes towards existing investigations or views on relations with countries that reject the court’s jurisdiction.

A disputed election could deepen divisions just as the court attempts to recover from Karim Khan’s removal. A transparent and credible selection process could instead demonstrate that the institution has learned from weaknesses exposed during the previous appointment.

Why do the Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu warrants remain legally intact?

Karim Khan’s departure does not cancel arrest warrants issued during his tenure because prosecutors do not possess unilateral authority to create or withdraw those judicial orders.

The Office of the Prosecutor submits applications supported by evidence and legal arguments. International Criminal Court judges independently determine whether reasonable grounds exist to issue an arrest warrant.

The warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin was issued in March 2023 in connection with allegations involving the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine. Russia rejects the court’s jurisdiction and does not recognise the warrant.

The warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant were issued in November 2024 in connection with alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from the Gaza conflict. Israel rejects the court’s jurisdiction and denies the allegations.

Only the judges assigned to the relevant cases can withdraw, modify or suspend those warrants following appropriate legal submissions. The Assembly of States Parties cannot cancel judicial decisions merely because it has removed the prosecutor who originally requested them.

The warrants therefore remain legal obligations for International Criminal Court member states, although enforcement depends on national governments. The court does not have its own police force and relies on countries to arrest suspects who enter their territories.

Karim Khan’s removal may still affect how the cases progress. The new prosecution leadership must decide how to allocate investigators, respond to jurisdictional challenges, protect witnesses and prepare for proceedings if a suspect is eventually transferred to The Hague.

The separation between disciplinary accountability and judicial continuity protects the court from a situation in which every leadership change automatically invalidates existing cases. It also prevents states opposing particular warrants from using the prosecutor’s removal as a legal shortcut to terminate proceedings.

How does the United States campaign against the ICC complicate the leadership transition?

The United States welcomed Karim Khan’s removal but made clear that the decision would not end its campaign against the International Criminal Court. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and rejects the court’s authority over United States citizens without Washington’s consent.

The administration of President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions on multiple International Criminal Court judges and prosecutors, including Karim Khan. The measures were introduced in response to the investigations involving Israeli officials and earlier scrutiny of alleged conduct by United States personnel in Afghanistan.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the court as a threat to United States sovereignty and said Washington intends to dismantle its ability to pursue United States and allied officials.

The removal of Karim Khan creates two competing narratives. Supporters of the International Criminal Court can argue that the institution demonstrated accountability by removing its most senior prosecutor after serious findings.

Critics can argue that the episode confirms deeper weaknesses in the court’s leadership, oversight and appointment procedures. The United States has indicated that replacing one official will not alter its broader opposition to the institution.

Sanctions can create practical difficulties for the International Criminal Court. Restrictions affecting officials, financial services and international travel can complicate investigations and discourage businesses or governments from cooperating with the court.

The next prosecutor will therefore inherit a confrontation that extends far beyond individual cases. The office must continue its legal work while operating under political and financial pressure from one of the world’s most influential governments.

Member states supporting the court must decide whether they are prepared to provide diplomatic protection, financial resources and practical cooperation. Statements defending international justice will have limited value if sanctions prevent the institution from performing its work.

What does Venezuela’s withdrawal announcement reveal about the court’s wider legitimacy crisis?

Venezuela announced its intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court only hours after the vote removing Karim Khan. The Venezuelan government accused the court of geographical bias and rejected the manner in which it has handled situations involving different regions.

The announcement adds another institutional challenge because the International Criminal Court has investigated alleged crimes against humanity connected to the political and security crisis in Venezuela.

Withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not immediately erase legal obligations or terminate matters already within the court’s jurisdiction. However, a member state leaving the institution weakens the court’s claim to universal legitimacy and complicates future cooperation.

The International Criminal Court has long faced criticism from African governments that argued the court concentrated disproportionately on African situations. More recent investigations involving Ukraine, Palestine, Afghanistan and Venezuela have broadened its geographic reach but produced new accusations of politicisation.

Russia, China, India, Israel and the United States are outside the court’s membership. The absence of several major powers means the International Criminal Court often depends on jurisdiction created by the territory where crimes allegedly occurred, referrals from member states or action by the United Nations Security Council.

This uneven jurisdiction creates unavoidable political tensions. The court may pursue nationals of a non-member state when alleged crimes occur on the territory of a member, while lacking authority over similar conduct elsewhere.

The leadership crisis therefore arrives during a wider struggle over whether the court can apply international criminal law consistently. Karim Khan’s removal addresses an internal accountability problem, but it does not resolve disputes concerning jurisdiction, enforcement and geopolitical selectivity.

Venezuela’s announcement also increases the risk that other governments under investigation could threaten withdrawal as a way of challenging the court. Member states must demonstrate that leaving the institution does not provide immunity for conduct already covered by the Rome Statute.

Can the International Criminal Court restore credibility after removing its own prosecutor?

Karim Khan’s removal can strengthen the International Criminal Court only if the institution treats the episode as evidence of broader governance weaknesses rather than as an isolated personnel problem.

The prosecutor exercises extraordinary authority. The office decides which allegations to investigate, which cases to prioritise and when to seek arrest warrants against political and military leaders.

That authority requires strong safeguards involving workplace conduct, complaints, conflicts of interest and protection against retaliation. Employees must be able to report misconduct without fearing damage to their careers or exposure to institutional pressure.

The next selection process must include deeper background checks and stronger examination of managerial conduct. Legal expertise alone cannot satisfy the leadership requirements of an office responsible for hundreds of employees, witnesses and victims across multiple conflict zones.

The court must also protect the independence of the new prosecutor. A process designed to avoid another misconduct scandal cannot become a mechanism through which powerful governments demand a politically compliant candidate.

Operational continuity will be another test. Investigations involving Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Venezuela and several African states must continue while the election process unfolds.

The International Criminal Court’s legitimacy ultimately depends on performance rather than declarations. The court must investigate impartially, protect due process, explain its jurisdiction clearly and secure meaningful cooperation from member states.

Removing Karim Khan demonstrated that the Assembly of States Parties can hold an elected official accountable. The harder question is whether the court can use that decision to strengthen governance while resisting attempts to derail its judicial work.

What are the key takeaways from Karim Khan’s removal as International Criminal Court prosecutor?

• Eighty-two of the International Criminal Court’s 125 member states voted on July 24, 2026, to remove Prosecutor Karim Khan after determining that he had committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of official duty.
• Karim Khan denied wrongdoing and denied having a sexual relationship with the employee who raised the allegations, while Karim Khan’s legal representative said the dismissal process would be challenged through available legal mechanisms.
• The Rome Statute allows the Assembly of States Parties to remove the prosecutor for serious misconduct or a serious breach of duty when an absolute majority of all member states supports the decision.
• Deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang will continue leading the Office of the Prosecutor, as they have done since Karim Khan began a leave of absence in May 2025.
• Existing arrest warrants involving Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant remain active because only International Criminal Court judges can withdraw judicial orders.
• The United States welcomed Karim Khan’s removal but said the decision would not change its campaign against the International Criminal Court, which includes sanctions on judges and prosecutors connected to sensitive investigations.
• Venezuela announced its intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court shortly after the removal vote, adding pressure to an institution already facing disputes over jurisdiction, enforcement and geographical balance.
• Member states must now select a new prosecutor through a process likely to continue into 2027, creating pressure for stronger background checks, transparent candidate scrutiny and protection of prosecutorial independence.