The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has been suspended with immediate effect while an investigation into misconduct allegations 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 oversight Bureau stressed that the suspension does not prejudge the outcome of the case.
Khan has repeatedly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct, with his lawyers describing the decision as “unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence”.
Previous media reports have cited a document outlining accusations against Khan, which are understood to include unwanted sexual touching and “abuse”.
A two-thirds majority would be required to uphold any finding, followed by a separate vote on whether Khan, should be removed from office.
Khan, a prominent British lawyer, has been on voluntary leave to fight the allegations since May 2025.
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.
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.
The OIOS findings were subsequently reviewed by a panel of three judges tasked with advising the Bureau of the ASP on 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.
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.
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.
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 their nationals on the territory of ICC member states.
If the ASP were to seek Khan’s removal, he could challenge the decision before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (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.
