Historic dismissal raises questions about accountability, due process and the future of the ICC’s Myanmar–Rohingya investigation
NEW YORK — July 31, 2026
The International Criminal Court’s member states have removed Chief Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan from office following disciplinary proceedings arising from sexual-misconduct allegations involving a female employee who worked under him.
The decision was adopted on July 24 during a special session of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It marks the first time a serving chief prosecutor has been removed in the court’s history.
The Assembly determined that Khan had committed “serious misconduct” and a “serious breach of duty,” removing him under Article 46 of the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC.
According to published reports, 82 of the ICC’s 125 member states voted in favor of Khan’s removal, while 13 voted against and 11 abstained.
Khan has consistently denied the allegations. His legal representatives maintain that the proceedings were unfair and politically influenced and have indicated that he intends to challenge the decision.
Allegations and disciplinary findings
The proceedings arose from allegations made by a female lawyer who worked under Khan in the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor.
She alleged that Khan subjected her to escalating unwanted and nonconsensual sexual conduct in several locations, reportedly including the ICC’s offices, Khan’s residence and during official travel.
The investigation also considered the considerable power imbalance between Khan, as the court’s chief prosecutor, and the employee working under his authority.
The Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties concluded that Khan had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with the employee and that his conduct amounted to serious misconduct and a serious breach of his official responsibilities.
Khan denies that any sexual relationship occurred and rejects all accusations of abuse or misconduct.
It is important to distinguish the Assembly’s decision from a criminal conviction. Khan was removed through an institutional disciplinary process under the Rome Statute; he has not been reported as having been convicted of a criminal offense in connection with the allegations.
The case should therefore be described as involving sexual-misconduct allegations and disciplinary findings—not a criminal conviction.
A lengthy and contested process
The allegations became publicly known in 2024. Concerns regarding the independence of an internal inquiry eventually led to the matter being referred to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services for an external investigation.
Khan took leave from his position in May 2025 while the investigation continued. Deputy Prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang subsequently assumed responsibility for managing the Office of the Prosecutor.
Following the UN investigation, three external judicial experts reviewed the evidence. Khan’s lawyers said the panel concluded that the available evidence was insufficient to establish misconduct under the standard it applied.
The Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties later reached a different conclusion after reviewing the underlying evidence and submissions. It determined that Khan had committed serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty, suspended him and recommended his permanent removal.
The difference between these assessments has become one of the most controversial aspects of the case.
Khan’s legal team argues that the Assembly disregarded the only independent judicial assessment and denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Assembly, however, was deciding an institutional disciplinary matter—not determining whether Khan was criminally guilty.
The proceedings have consequently raised unresolved questions about the applicable standard of proof, procedural safeguards and possible avenues of appeal for elected ICC officials.
Timeline of the Karim Khan case
2024 — Allegations become public
Sexual-misconduct allegations involving a woman who worked under Khan become publicly known. Khan denies wrongdoing.
November 2024 — External investigation announced
Amid concerns about conflicts of interest within the ICC, the Assembly of States Parties announces that an external investigation will be conducted through the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services.
November 27, 2024 — Min Aung Hlaing warrant requested
Khan’s office files an application seeking an ICC arrest warrant for Myanmar military leader Min Aung Hlaing over alleged crimes against humanity involving the deportation and persecution of the Rohingya.
May 16, 2025 — Khan takes leave
Khan steps aside while the misconduct investigation continues. Deputy Prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang assume leadership of the Office of the Prosecutor.
Late 2025 — UN inquiry completed
The UN investigators complete their inquiry. Subsequent reports indicate that the investigation found evidence supporting elements of the complainant’s account.
March 2026 — External judicial review
Three external judicial experts review the investigative materials. Khan’s legal team says the panel found the available evidence insufficient to establish misconduct under the standard it applied.
June 2026 — ICC Bureau recommends removal
The Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties reaches a different conclusion after considering the evidence. It finds serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty, suspends Khan and refers the matter to the full Assembly.
July 24, 2026 — Member states remove Khan
During a special session in New York, ICC member states vote to remove Khan under Article 46 of the Rome Statute. It becomes the first removal of a serving chief prosecutor in the court’s history.
July 2026 onward — Leadership transition begins
The deputy prosecutors continue managing the Office of the Prosecutor. Existing investigations, warrants and pending applications remain before the ICC as the Assembly begins selecting Khan’s successor.
Political pressure surrounding the ICC
Khan’s removal occurred while the ICC was facing intense international pressure over some of its most politically sensitive investigations and arrest warrants.
During his tenure, Khan pursued proceedings involving Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Taliban leaders, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Myanmar military leader Min Aung Hlaing.
The United States, which is not an ICC member, imposed sanctions on Khan and other ICC personnel over the court’s proceedings involving Israeli officials and its earlier investigations connected to Afghanistan.
Khan’s defense team argues that his removal cannot be separated from the wider campaign against the ICC and has characterized the disciplinary process as politically compromised.
However, no publicly established evidence proves that the complainant or UN investigators fabricated the allegations as part of a political campaign.
The ICC’s geopolitical difficulties and its responsibility to investigate alleged workplace misconduct must therefore be assessed carefully as separate issues. Political attacks against the court do not automatically disprove misconduct allegations, while disciplinary proceedings should never be exploited to undermine legitimate international investigations.
What happens to the Office of the Prosecutor?
Khan’s removal does not dissolve the Office of the Prosecutor or automatically cancel its investigations, applications or arrest warrants.
Deputy Prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang are expected to continue leading the office during the transition. The Assembly of States Parties must now organize the nomination and election of a new chief prosecutor, a process that could extend into 2027.
ICC prosecutors request arrest warrants, but the court’s judges decide whether to approve or reject them. Removing the prosecutor who initiated a case does not automatically invalidate a warrant already approved by the judges.
Similarly, ongoing investigations and pending applications belong institutionally to the Office of the Prosecutor rather than personally to Karim Khan.
Implications for Myanmar and the Rohingya case
Khan’s removal is especially relevant to Myanmar because his office requested an arrest warrant for Senior General Min Aung Hlaing over alleged crimes against humanity involving the Rohingya.
On November 27, 2024, Khan announced that his office had filed an application seeking a warrant for Min Aung Hlaing for the alleged crimes of deportation and persecution.
Myanmar is not a member of the ICC, but neighboring Bangladesh is. The court previously determined that it may exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes that began in Myanmar but were completed partly on the territory of Bangladesh through the forced cross-border displacement of Rohingya civilians.
The warrant application remains a matter for an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber.
Khan’s removal does not automatically withdraw or invalidate the application. ICC judges remain responsible for determining whether the legal and evidentiary requirements for issuing the requested warrant have been satisfied.
Nevertheless, the leadership transition could have practical consequences:
- Changes in leadership may slow prosecutorial decision-making.
- Political and financial pressure could affect the court’s operations.
- Rohingya victims and witnesses may require assurances that their case remains a priority.
- A future chief prosecutor could influence the wider strategy of the Bangladesh–Myanmar investigation.
- Enforcement of any future warrant would continue to depend heavily on cooperation from states.
The immediate legal position remains clear: Khan’s departure does not terminate the ICC proceedings involving Min Aung Hlaing or the alleged crimes committed against the Rohingya. However, the institutional crisis could contribute to delays and uncertainty.
Accountability and institutional credibility
Khan’s removal demonstrates that the ICC’s most senior prosecutor is not exempt from disciplinary accountability. An institution established to prosecute grave international crimes must also provide a safe, ethical and credible working environment for its own employees.
At the same time, the conflicting assessments of the evidence have raised significant due-process concerns. The court and its member states will need to clarify how evidence is evaluated, what protections are available to complainants and accused officials, and whether meaningful review or appeal is possible.
The controversy has damaged the credibility of an institution already facing accusations of political selectivity, inconsistent enforcement and excessive dependence on state cooperation.
Restoring confidence will require:
- A transparent process for selecting the next prosecutor;
- Stronger ethical safeguards and candidate screening;
- Effective protection for complainants, witnesses and employees;
- Fair procedures for officials accused of misconduct;
- Institutional independence from political interference; and
- Continued attention to victims involved in existing investigations.
Zomi Press analysis
Karim Khan’s removal should not be reduced to the claim that he was simply “fired over a sexual-misconduct charge.”
The decision followed a lengthy and disputed disciplinary process involving a UN investigation, an external judicial assessment, conflicting interpretations of the evidence and a decisive vote by the ICC’s member states. It resulted in institutional removal—not a criminal conviction.
Two essential principles must be upheld together: no powerful international official should be placed above accountability, and disciplinary proceedings must remain independent, transparent and procedurally fair.
For Myanmar and Rohingya victims, the central concern is no longer Khan’s individual career. It is whether the ICC will maintain the independence, resources and institutional determination required to advance the Bangladesh–Myanmar investigation.
Khan has departed, but the allegations of crimes against the Rohingya—and the continuing demand for justice and accountability—remain before the court.
Sources: Reuters, Associated Press, ICC Bangladesh–Myanmar situation
Zomi Press — Beyond News & Views
🌐 https://zomipress.com
📧 info@zomipress.com