By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
The International Criminal Court has suspended its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, with immediate effect while an investigation into allegations of misconduct continues. The decision was made by a group within the ICC’s management oversight body, which has also referred the matter to the court’s 125 member states. Those states will vote on Khan’s future during a special session that will be convened “as soon as possible”.
The 56-year-old is facing allegations of sexual misconduct with a female aide, in a scandal that has dragged on for more than two years. The oversight Bureau stressed that the suspension does not prejudge the outcome of the case. The executive committee noted that the suspension pending the assembly meeting “is not an indication of the final outcome.”
Khan, a prominent British lawyer, has been on voluntary leave to fight the allegations since May 2025. He has been the court’s chief prosecutor since 2021. He has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing. His lawyers described the decision as “unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence”. His legal team vowed to “take all necessary steps to challenge the decision, protect his rights, and ensure that due process is upheld.” When contacted for comment, Khan’s legal team said a statement would be issued Tuesday.
The evidence and judicial review
The Bureau of the Assembly of States parties – the executive committee of the court’s oversight body – said in a statement that it based its decision “on the report of an investigation undertaken by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the underlying evidence, the advice of an ad hoc Panel of judicial experts, and written submissions.”
The 21-member executive committee of the court’s oversight body, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties, on Monday voted to suspend British barrister Karim Khan and refer him for further disciplinary proceedings after documents seen by The Associated Press on Tuesday indicated that the investigation found he had engaged in “serious misconduct” and “serious breach of duty.”
The U.N. investigation found evidence that Khan had “nonconsensual sexual contact with (the aide) in his office, at his private residence, and whilst on mission.” The investigation report noted that the nonconsensual contact occurred “in his office, at his private residence” and while on a mission, which added that the U.N. probe originally concluded in April.
However, a three-judge panel selected by the executive committee for a legal assessment of the findings found that the investigation was not conclusive enough. The ICC operates independently of the United Nations. The panel of three judges was tasked with advising the Bureau of the ASP on whether Khan’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct, less serious misconduct, or no misconduct. Earlier in 2026, Khan stated that he had been “exonerated” by the findings, noting that the three-judge panel unanimously concluded the results did “not establish misconduct or a breach of duty.” Despite this, the ASP executive bureau opted to disregard the judicial assessment, exercising a qualified majority vote under Rule 28 to recommend a finding of “serious misconduct” anyway.
Inside the allegations
The process is unprecedented for the ICC, and the Assembly of States Parties has had to repeatedly create new rules to accommodate the situation. Previous media reports have cited a document outlining accusations against Khan, which are understood to include unwanted sexual touching and “abuse”.
An AP investigation revealed that Khan was alleged to have seen the woman working in another ICC department and moved her into his office. She later became a regular presence on official trips, according to whistleblower documents.
On one foreign trip, Khan allegedly asked her to rest with him on a hotel bed and then “sexually touched her,” the documents said. Other alleged nonconsensual behavior cited in the documents included locking the door of his office and sticking his hand in her pocket. He also allegedly asked her several times to accompany him on a vacation.
Visibility of the complainant and workplace safety
Monday’s announcement did not mention Khan’s alleged victim in the case, who has also been on leave from the court. Danya Chaikel of the International Federation for Human Rights, told the AP that the very omission of the victim’s name shows “the wider problem: the woman at the center of this process is almost invisible, as she has too often been throughout this process.”
In response to growing pressure regarding workplace equity, the ICC prosecution office said it was “acutely aware of the duty of care” it owes all staff and personnel, and would “continue to place critical importance on ensuring a safe working environment and respectful workplace culture for all personnel.”
A troubled investigative timeline
In May 2024, allegations that Khan had engaged in sexual misconduct involving a female staff member were reported to the ICC by a third party. The court’s Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM) opened an investigation, but the case was later closed after the alleged victim declined to participate. Critics of the process argued that the investigation had been mishandled, undermining confidence in the IOM. Investigators ultimately said there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.
A second referral was made in October 2024. The matter was then transferred to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducted a broader investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of authority. That inquiry ran from November 2024 to December 2025 and generated more than 5,000 pages of evidence and testimony.
Internal strife and institutional pressure
The allegations have unfolded amid exceptional pressure on the ICC. Staff members within the Office of the Prosecutor have warned that Khan’s return could damage confidence in the institution and have expressed concerns about possible retaliation. Supporters of Khan, meanwhile, argue that the investigation failed to substantiate the allegations against him.
Regardless of the final decision on Karin Khan’s fate from the 125 member states, the controversy is unlikely to end there. The decision follows a highly sensitive process that has left the court under intense scrutiny. Recognizing the urgency of the institutional crisis, the ICC president, Judge Tomoko Akane, called on the assembly to finalize the process “with the highest priority.”
Geopolitical tensions and sanctions
The controversy has also coincided with wider political tensions surrounding the court. The United States imposed sanctions on Khan after he sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes linked to the war in Gaza. His work has been hampered by sanctions slapped on him and other court officials by the Trump administration over the ICC investigations into U.S. ally Israel. The court’s actions also included warrants for three leaders of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, who were subsequently killed.
Sanctions against the prosecutor were later expanded to include two deputy prosecutors, eight ICC judges, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Palestinian organisations that provided evidence to the court.
The United States, Russia and Israel are not members of the ICC. However, the court can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by its nationals on the territory of ICC member states.
Continental stakes and the African vote
The high-stakes standoff will test the unity of African member states, who form one of the largest regional voting blocs in the Assembly of States Parties. Ghana, alongside its regional peers, has historically navigated a complex relationship with the Hague, balancing the push for international accountability with past concerns over the selective targeting of African leaders. Observers note that African delegations will play a decisive role in the upcoming secret ballot, as the 63-vote threshold for removal hinges heavily on how the continent’s 33 member states choose to handle the procedural split between the executive bureau and the judicial panel.
The mechanism for removal and legal appeals
Only the Assembly of States Parties has the authority to remove Khan from office, a move that would require a majority in a secret ballot of its 125 member states. Sixty-three countries would need to support a measure to remove him. A separate two-thirds majority would be required to uphold any finding, followed by the vote on whether Khan should be removed from office.
If the ASP were to seek Khan’s removal, he could challenge the decision before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT), which hears employment-related appeals involving ICC staff. Any attempt to remove Khan could therefore trigger a lengthy legal challenge, with the possibility of reinstatement and significant compensation if a tribunal found the disciplinary process had been flawed.
