ICC Votes to Oust Former Ruto Lawyer Karim Khan
One of top lawyers who represented President William Ruto at the International Criminal Court, British barrister Karim Khan, has seen his legal career reach an unprecedented turning point after member states voted to remove him as chief prosecutor.
The decision follows months of internal turmoil and high-stakes drama surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct. The departure marks a historic moment for the tribunal, which now finds itself navigating one of the most severe internal crises since its founding.
Elected in 2021 as the third chief prosecutor of the Hague-based institution, Khan built a reputation as a formidable legal mind capable of handling high-profile, highly sensitive international proceedings. His career spanned decades across international war crimes tribunals, representing world leaders, political figures, and victims of mass atrocities alike. However, his tenure at the helm of the world’s premier war crimes court ground to a halt following grave internal accusations regarding an improper relationship with a subordinate.
Diplomats representing member states convened at the United Nations headquarters in New York to decide the chief prosecutor’s fate. The vote concluded with 82 member states favoring his official dismissal, endorsing recommendations made by the court’s governing body. The vote stripped him of his executive mandate and triggered a mandatory process to seek a replacement leader.
The fallout from the investigation has reverberated far beyond the personal career of a prominent legal advocate. Supporters and legal scholars worry that the scandal could permanently diminish public confidence in the tribunal’s impartiality and governance. Furthermore, the controversy erupted during a period of fierce external political resistance from major world powers.
Throughout the lengthy inquiry, the former prosecutor maintained his innocence, rejecting the charges and claiming that his actions were subjected to unfair scrutiny. Legal representatives for Khan expressed immediate disappointment with the outcome, promising to pursue all diplomatic and legal avenues available to contest the legitimacy of his removal.
Findings of Misconduct and Institutional Fallout
The court’s oversight body found in June he had committed a “serious breach of duty and serious misconduct” by engaging in an improper sexual relationship with a junior ICC staff member and seeking to stop her pursuing her complaint.
Khan has repeatedly denied all the allegations against him. His lawyer said he would challenge “the lawfulness and fairness of the decision through all available legal mechanisms”. It was not immediately clear what legal avenues remained open to the ousted prosecutor.
In a statement after the vote, the ICC “took note” of the decision of the Special Session of the Assembly of States Parties – the 125 member states which voted to remove Khan.
“The Court will continue to attach the utmost importance to maintaining a safe, inclusive, and respectful working environment for all personnel,” the ICC statement said.
The entire process, however, goes beyond the fate of a single prosecutor and could reshape the world’s only permanent war‑crimes tribunal. The misconduct investigation has put the institution under a glaring spotlight, intensified divisions inside it and played out alongside an unprecedented campaign to weaken, and in fact dismantle, the ICC in its entirety. The fear among its supporters is that the court will emerge weakened and less able to face the gravest global threats.
Khan, a prominent British lawyer, has been on voluntary leave to fight the allegations since May 2025. He remains suspended from practising law in the UK, after the Bar Standards Board imposed an interim ban while it conducts its own inquiry. He was unable to attend the vote, held in the United Nations headquarters in New York, because he is barred from entering the United States under sanctions imposed by the Trump administration over the ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Israeli officials in Gaza.
Regardless of his removal, the controversy is unlikely to end there. The decision follows a highly sensitive process that has left the court under intense scrutiny. 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 Broader Battle for the Court’s Future
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. The OIOS findings were subsequently reviewed by a panel of three judges tasked with advising whether Khan’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct, less serious misconduct, or no misconduct.
The allegations have unfolded during a period of exceptional pressure on the ICC, coinciding with wider political tensions. 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. Washington’s attitude to the court in general has become increasingly hostile in recent years.
Earlier this month, the US launched a new “whole‑of‑government” campaign to dismantle the ICC “brick by brick” in what it calls a threat to American sovereignty, promising visa bans, asset freezes and diplomatic pressure on allies to withdraw from the court or reject its jurisdiction over their nationals. The United States, Russia and Israel are not members of the ICC. However, the court can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by their nationals on the territory of ICC member states.
The removal of the chief prosecutor represents an extraordinary moment for global diplomacy and legal accountability. As the Assembly of States Parties begins the delicate process of selecting a new chief prosecutor, the tribunal must find a way to rebuild internal trust while maintaining its mandate to prosecute humanity’s worst atrocities.
