On 27 July, the Assembly of States Parties, the governing body of the International Criminal Court (ICC), voted to remove Prosecutor Karim Khan from office, capping a year-long controversy that has become entwined with one of the court’s most politically sensitive investigations: its pursuit of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Khan’s removal has deepened concerns among legal scholars and international officials that the world’s only permanent war crimes court faces an unprecedented campaign of political pressure.
Allegations of sexual misconduct against Khan emerged in 2024, shortly after he announced he was seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and three Hamas leaders.
Khan has consistently denied the allegations, insisting they were investigated through established procedures and that no judicial body found he had committed misconduct under the applicable legal framework. His critics reject suggestions that the timing undermines the complaints, arguing the allegations should be assessed independently of the Israel investigation.
The controversy surrounding Khan’s removal cannot be understood without examining the extraordinary pressure that followed his decision to pursue the Israel case.
Within days of Khan’s announcement in May 2024, Israeli leaders condemned the prosecutor in unusually forceful terms. Netanyahu described the ICC’s actions as “absurd” and “antisemitic”, insisting Israel was exercising its right to self-defence following Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attacks.
Israeli officials argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Israel and accused Khan of creating a “false equivalence” between a democratic state and a terrorist organisation. Foreign Minister Israel Katz called the warrants a “moral outrage”, while other ministers characterised the prosecutor’s actions as politically motivated.
The backlash was not confined to Israel.
In February 2025, the United States imposed sanctions on Khan under an executive order authorising punitive measures against ICC officials involved in investigations of US citizens or close allies.
Washington froze assets subject to US jurisdiction and imposed travel restrictions, arguing that the court had exceeded its mandate by asserting jurisdiction over Israeli nationals.
The sanctions echoed an earlier campaign by the Trump administration against former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who was sanctioned after opening investigations involving Afghanistan.
Human rights organisations warned that sanctioning prosecutors and judges represents an unprecedented assault on judicial independence. Several legal scholars argued that punishing officials for carrying out their judicial functions risks undermining the principle that international courts must be free from political interference.
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories who is under US sanctions for criticising Israel, said that Khan’s removal “lines up neatly with the fight to neutralise Netanyahu’s arrest warrant. Coincidence is a luxury international law can no longer afford,” she wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
This proves that justice threatens Israel, she added.
According to Guy Azriel, diplomatic correspondent of the Israeli TV network i24News, a senior Israeli official said that Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar had played an active role in efforts to advance the move against Khan.
“According to the official, Sa’ar oversaw a dedicated task force and employed intensive diplomatic efforts aimed at securing Khan’s removal from office,” Azriel said.
Khan himself has repeatedly spoken about the pressure surrounding the investigation.
In interviews and comments, he disclosed that senior political figures had attempted to dissuade him from pursuing the Israel case. Speaking in 2024, Khan recounted that one senior Western official told him that the ICC “was built for Africa and for thugs like Putin”, not for Western states or their allies.
The remark, Khan suggested, reflected a broader belief among some governments that the court should apply international criminal law selectively rather than universally.
He also described receiving threats and facing intense political pressure after seeking the warrants, saying such efforts demonstrated why the court’s independence mattered. “If we succumb to threats”, he warned, “then the rule of law becomes meaningless”.
The legal proceedings that eventually culminated in his removal remain deeply contested.
According to a statement issued by Khan’s legal representatives following the vote to remove him, the allegations were investigated for more than a year by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).
His lawyers said the investigation had produced 137 findings but did not make a finding that Khan had committed misconduct, including sexual misconduct.
The evidence was reviewed by an independent judicial panel comprising three senior international judges appointed by the ICC Bureau, a standing executive body of the Assembly of States Parties responsible for administrative and governance matters.
According to Khan’s legal team, the panel unanimously concluded on 9 March this year that the factual findings did not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the applicable legal framework. The panel emphasised the distinction between evidence and legal findings, noting that factual findings require judicial analysis rather than mere allegations.
The bureau nevertheless concluded that the matter should proceed to the Assembly of States Parties, which is made up of representatives from every country that has ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC.
Khan’s lawyers argued that the bureau, a political rather than judicial body, had disregarded the unanimous assessment of the judges it had itself appointed. They further alleged that Khan was denied procedural fairness because neither he nor his legal representatives were permitted to address member states before the vote on his removal.
The assembly ultimately voted to remove Khan. Under the Rome Statute, it consists of representatives of the ICC’s 125 member states, who cast votes on behalf of their governments.
Diplomats participating in the assembly act as state representatives rather than independent jurors, reflecting the positions adopted by their respective governments. Critics of the process argue that this political structure inevitably raises questions when disciplinary decisions concern an official engaged in politically sensitive investigations.
Whether the bureau’s handling of the judicial panel’s conclusions represents standard practice is itself disputed. The bureau is a permanent organ of the assembly and routinely manages administrative matters.
In an open letter published on 22 July ahead of the assembly vote, more than 180 NGOs and senior international lawyers argued that the disciplinary process has become politicised and threatens the independence of the ICC.
The letter criticises the bureau for setting aside the legal conclusions of the independent panel of judges and reaching its own assessment.
According to the signatories to the letter, the bureau lacks the independence, legal expertise, and procedural safeguards required to make judicial determinations of misconduct. They argue that allowing governments to override legal findings creates a dangerous precedent for political interference in the court.
The controversy has unfolded against the backdrop of years of efforts to constrain the ICC’s work.
The United States has never joined the court and has long objected to its jurisdiction over nationals of non-member states. Israel likewise rejects the court’s jurisdiction.
In another blow to the ICC, Venezuela formally notified the United Nations on 24 July that it was withdrawing from the Rome Statute, the court’s founding treaty. The move followed the US military intervention earlier this year that removed president Nicolás Maduro and installed a transitional government backed by Washington.
The debate now extends well beyond Khan himself and concerns whether the ICC can continue to function as an independent court applying international law equally, regardless of the identity of those under investigation.
For Craig Mokhiber, an American former UN human rights official and a specialist in international human rights law, the question now centres around the fate of the arrest warrants for Israeli officials involved in the Gaza genocide.
“The ICC now has only two paths before it: either it will demand that ICC states immediately take action individually and collectively to execute the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, issue the additional warrants for other senior Israeli perpetrators, add the additional charge of genocide, and act under Article 70 to punish US/UK/Israeli actors that have obstructed justice, or it will fizzle out like a damp wick and cease to exist,” he said.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 30 July, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: