𝐊𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐦 𝐊𝐡𝐚𝐧: 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥

𝐵𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑁 𝐸𝑑𝑖-𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒 *

In recent years, allegations of sexual misconduct have become a recurring feature in the downfall of many prominent public figures. Whether such allegations are ultimately substantiated or not, they can inflict profound reputational damage long before any formal determination of guilt or innocence is established.

On 24 July 2026, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute removed the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan, from office during a special session held at the UN Headquarters in New York. The decision followed allegations of serious sexual misconduct involving a junior member of staff.

It marked the first occasion in the Court’s history that a sitting Chief Prosecutor had been removed by the ASP. Karim Khan KC has consistently denied any wrongdoing, arguing that he was denied due process and announcing his intention to challenge the decision, while maintaining that the allegations are politically motivated. According to Christiane Amanpour’s CNN interview with the alleged victim, Sarah, Khan “maintains that he never engaged in any conduct with you [Sarah] that could be construed as inappropriate, unwelcome or abusive. He also said that you did not express in any fashion that you found any conduct or interaction unwelcome or inappropriate.”

The circumstances surrounding the extraordinary dismissal of this exemplary prosecutor seems Shakespearean in scale. Before his dramatic sacking, the 56-year-old Oxford-trained British King’s Counsel was widely regarded as one of the most accomplished and influential international prosecutors of his generation. Renowned for his formidable intellect, exceptional courtroom advocacy and independent judgement, he built a reputation as a fearless prosecutor willing to pursue politically sensitive cases regardless of the power or status of those involved. Throughout his career, Khan maintained that international law must be applied equally to all, without fear or favour.

This brilliant prosecutor pursued cases against leaders of powerful states and non-state actors alike. A human rights advocate, Khan became internationally renowned for seeking arrest warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin over crimes arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In November 2024, he also sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the conflict in Gaza. Consistent with his insistence that international law applies equally to all parties in a conflict, he also sought arrest warrants for senior Hamas leaders.

And there seems to lie the wellspring of his problems, for the Netanyahu case is particularly significant. Many argue that there is a direct connection between Khan’s prosecution of Benjamin Netanyahu and his subsequent removal from office.

Few politicians have proved as adept at recasting their personal legal problems as attacks on their ethnicity, their nation or their religion in order to avoid individual accountability as Netanyahu. Throughout his political career, he has demonstrated an exceptional ability to frame legal and political challenges directed at him as attacks on Israel itself. By presenting his personal predicament as inseparable from the interests of the Israeli state and the Jewish people, he has transformed what would ordinarily be questions of individual criminal responsibility into broader contests over national identity, security and historical memory. Political scientists and legal scholars have examined the phenomenon whereby individuals seek to associate their personal problems with the identity of a wider collective—and labelled it as identity laundering.

Netanyahu stands accused of corruption and other offences both domestically and internationally and has been embroiled in legal proceedings since 2020. He and his wife face charges of accepting expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen in return for political favours. He is also accused of negotiating with a newspaper publisher to secure more favourable media coverage in exchange for legislation that would weaken a rival newspaper, an arrangement prosecutors allege constituted fraud and breach of trust.

In the most serious case, the Bezeq/Walla! Affair, prosecutors allege that, while serving as Communications Minister, Netanyahu granted regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bezeq telecommunications group in exchange for favourable coverage on the Walla! News website, which was controlled by Bezeq’s owner. Netanyahu faces charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges, maintaining that they are politically motivated.

On the international stage, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes, including using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against civilians. Many experts and world-renowned Israeli Holocaust scholars, including Dr Shmuel Lederman, Raz Segal and Amos Goldberg of the Hebrew University, have argued that Netanyahu’s actions against the Palestinians in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide. If ultimately convicted, he could face a lengthy prison sentence.

With Israeli elections around the corner, the criminal allegations hanging over Netanyahu have the potential to weaken his candidacy. However, Netanyahu and his supporters argue that criticism directed at Israel reflects anti-Semitism or that Israel is judged by standards not consistently applied to other states. They further contend that the charges against the Israeli Prime Minister are, in effect, charges against Israel itself. Critics, by contrast, argue that this line of reasoning blurs the distinction between criticism of a government’s policies or conduct and hostility towards the Israeli state or the Jewish people. In principle, the legal proceedings concerning Netanyahu relate to decisions allegedly taken in his capacity as Prime Minister rather than to his ethnic or religious identity. 

By portraying allegations concerning his personal conduct as an attack on the State of Israel or the Jewish people, Netanyahu successfully shifts the focus from questions of his individual accountability to issues of collective identity and historical grievance against Israel.

Political scientists and legal scholars have long determined that some leaders confronted with allegations of wrongdoing seek to fuse their personal fortunes with those of the state they govern. Once that identification is established, criticism of the individual can be portrayed as an assault on the nation; a 𝑙𝑒̀𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒́, enabling supporters to rally around the leader rather than engage with the substance of the allegations.

The effectiveness of this approach lies in its ability to redefine the terms of public debate. The discussion shifts away from evidence, legal standards and individual accountability towards questions of patriotism, collective loyalty and existential threat. Opponents are portrayed not merely as critics of a political leader but as adversaries of the nation itself. 

Netanyahu has been under severe pressure from home critics regarding his conduct of the war in Gaza and corruption charges at home. Any notion that weakens his grip on power is a risk he cannot afford to take. Conversely, any action that strengthens his position as the saviour of the nation plays well with his domestic audience, pleases AIPAC and helps maintain American political support. He cannot afford to underplay his influence over Israeli public opinion.

Immediately after the ICC issued the arrest warrants against Netanyahu, his legal team claimed that the process was being exploited by anti-Israeli groups. Pro-Israel organisations such as AIPAC, alongside Israeli officials and the US government, fiercely denounced the warrant requests as biased and illegitimate. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is widely regarded as an influential lobbying organisation that shapes US policy on issues relating to Israel.

Khan’s defence team argued that the misconduct proceedings he faced were retaliatory or amounted to a “witch hunt” linked to his high-profile pursuit of the Israeli leadership. There are credible arguments that the process was significantly flawed. Measured against the ideals of natural justice—particularly the presumption of innocence, due process, and transparency—critics argue that the proceedings had significant shortcomings. Karim Khan was removed before any criminal court had determined whether the allegations against him were true. This departed from the principle that serious allegations should be properly adjudicated before the most severe professional sanction is imposed. A major point of debate is that Khan was not given a full and meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. Due process generally requires that the accused know the case against them, have access to the evidence, and be able to respond effectively. The decision came while Khan was overseeing highly sensitive investigations, including arrest warrants relating to the Israel–Hamas conflict. This timing has fuelled speculation that political considerations may have influenced the process. Khan was not found guilty by the independent judicial review panel. On the contrary, the panel unanimously concluded that the evidence did not establish misconduct or a breach of duty under the applicable legal framework. Nevertheless, the ASP subsequently removed him from office following its own disciplinary process, despite those judicial findings

Conversely, Israeli officials and other international critics maintained that his removal was necessary to address serious workplace misconduct and preserve the Court’s institutional credibility, arguing that Khan had attempted to use the arrest warrants against Israeli officials as a shield against accountability. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬: 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐚𝐡𝐮 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐊𝐡𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲?

Crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts, have arisen from Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. The ICC has the legal authority to investigate, prosecute and convict individuals accused of the most heinous international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression—all offences of which Netanyahu has been accused.

These high-profile prosecutions cemented Khan’s reputation as a prosecutor prepared to confront some of the world’s most powerful political leaders and non-state actors alike, ultimately placing both his personal and professional life at risk. In November 2025, the Trump regime imposed sanctions on Khan and other members of the ICC, freezing his assets in the United States for issuing arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu.

How did a man whose pursuit of justice placed him at the pinnacle of international criminal law come to suffer such a dramatic dismissal by the very institution he had come to embody as a symbol of integrity?

Initially, I intended to title this essay 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐼𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑, for it is difficult to escape the impression that justice itself has been placed in the dock. Although concise and rhetorically compelling, that title carries a force that reverses the institution’s customary role as the accuser rather than the accused.

The ICC has been the subject of vigorous criticism over aspects of its governance, institutional design and prosecutorial policies, as well as the factual and legal conclusions reached in some of its cases. Those debates, however significant, are not the focus here, and this is not an indictment of the ICC itself.

What is beyond dispute is that the controversy surrounding the ICC’s investigation, coupled with the subsequent removal of Karim Khan, has raised difficult questions about the independence of international justice. It has also fuelled concerns that the prosecution of powerful political leaders may expose international prosecutors to pressures extending far beyond the courtroom.

If international criminal justice is to retain its credibility, it must be seen to apply the law consistently, irrespective of nationality, political influence or strategic importance—principles on which Khan stood firmly. The principle that no one is above the law is the very foundation upon which the International Criminal Court was established. If that principle is perceived to have been compromised by political pressure, the Court itself will inevitably be weakened.

The circumstances surrounding Khan’s removal have become one of the most significant institutional crises in the ICC’s history. Whether his dismissal proves to have been a legitimate exercise in institutional accountability or an episode shaped by broader political pressures will remain the subject of debate for years to come. What cannot be denied, is that the case has exposed the fragility of international justice when it collides with a geopolitical colossus. In that sense, Karim Khan’s story is no longer the story of a prosecutor brought down by allegations of misconduct. It is a test of whether the institutions entrusted with administering international justice can themselves withstand the political forces they were created to resist.

This article argues that the process by which Khan was removed was legally defective in several important respects. It contends that the ASP re-characterised the factual record beyond the findings of the independent judges, rejected their recommendation without providing a reasoned legal justification, and substituted the deliberative rigour ordinarily expected of disciplinary proceedings with a secret ballot conducted first by twenty-one and subsequently by one hundred and twenty-five state representatives. It asks the fundamental question of whether anything resembling a fair trial took place, examines the asymmetry between Article 46’s treatment of judges and its treatment of the Prosecutor, and considers the wider implications of the episode for the independence that the Rome Statute was intended to guarantee to both the Office of the Prosecutor and its future holders.

*𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑁 𝐸𝑑𝑖-𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝐻𝑆𝐵𝐶, 𝑈𝐾, 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑑  𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟. 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡: @𝑒𝑑𝑖.𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑎@𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑙.𝑐𝑜𝑚