THE HAGUE (Dispatches) — The removal of International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan has raised serious concerns about the independence of the ICC’s top office, with legal experts warning that political considerations — including anger over Khan’s pursuit of Israeli leaders — fatally undermined the disciplinary process.
The Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s governing body, voted on July 24 to dismiss Khan after an 18-month misconduct probe, finding he engaged in “prohibited conduct against a subordinate staff member.” Khan has denied any wrongdoing.
The decision came despite a panel of three judges appointed by the ASP bureau concluding unanimously in March that the facts did not establish any wrongdoing under the relevant legal framework. The bureau effectively disregarded the judges’ opinion and recommended Khan’s removal.
The bureau also amended voting rules to lower the threshold, changing from a two-stage vote to a single vote.
“The ASP is a political body. Delegates vote on issues in accordance with instructions from their governments,” said William Schabas, professor of international law at Middlesex University, told Middle East Eye. “A determination by the ASP that ‘serious misconduct and serious breach of duty’ has taken place is an inherently political one.”
Schabas noted the ASP’s decision “does not identify the specific act or acts that constitute ‘serious misconduct’” and that it “is not a proper judgment. It is not a judicial decision.”
“Undoubtedly, the anger of some States Parties at Khan’s decision to pursue prosecution of Israeli leaders contributed to the decision,” he said, adding that “others may have voted to remove him because they were promised something by Israel or by the United States.”
Khan was the first ICC prosecutor to seek warrants against sitting leaders of non-African states, including Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. His May 2024 move against Israeli leaders prompted U.S. sanctions against Khan, his deputies and eight ICC judges.
“Great harm has been done to the court in general and to the independence of the prosecutor,” Schabas said. 
“The next prosecutor will live with the concern that decisions to investigate certain situations and to seek arrest warrants against certain individuals will provoke the ire of some States Parties who may then use the disciplinary proceedings in order to threaten or intimidate the prosecutor.”
Schabas called for revising ICC rules to ensure future removal decisions are “judicial in nature” and made by “independent and impartial judges,” arguing that without such protections, “the independence of the prosecutor” remains vulnerable to political pressure.