The International Criminal Court has begun an unprecedented leadership transition after its member states removed Prosecutor Karim Khan for serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty. The court must now design a replacement process while two deputy prosecutors keep active investigations and prosecutions moving.
The removal does not cancel arrest warrants or close cases. Judges, not the prosecutor, control outstanding warrants, while Deputy Prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal are managing the Office of the Prosecutor until member states elect a successor.
At The Hague, accountability begins inside the institution
On July 24, 82 of the court’s 125 member states voted to remove Khan. The ICC acknowledged the decision and said it remained committed to accountability for the gravest crimes. Khan has denied the sexual-misconduct allegations and, through his lawyer, said he intends to challenge the process through available legal mechanisms.
The decisive vote offers the court a measure of institutional clarity after a long and damaging inquiry. It also creates a demanding search. Member states still need to agree on procedures, screening and a timetable, and Reuters reported that a vote is not expected before the new year.
The previous selection took roughly 18 months and drew criticism over candidate vetting. This time, professional qualifications will be only one part of the test. The Rome Statute requires a prosecutor of high moral character, competence and extensive practical experience. Member states will face pressure to make that standard visible through stronger background checks and a process trusted by staff as well as governments.
Continuity matters because the prosecutor’s office covers situations including Ukraine, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Venezuela, Sudan, Libya and several African states. The deputies can administer the office, but a prolonged vacancy could complicate strategic choices, diplomatic engagement and internal reform.
Outside pressure narrows an already difficult choice
The search will unfold under an expanded United States campaign against the court. Washington has imposed financial and travel sanctions on ICC personnel over investigations involving Israeli officials and US forces. A candidate for prosecutor must therefore weigh not only the legal responsibilities of the job but the likelihood of personal sanctions.
At the same time, more governments are leaving. Reuters reported that Chad joined Venezuela, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger in starting withdrawal processes in recent months. Some withdrawing governments accuse the court of geographic bias, while supporters argue that departures and non-cooperation make accountability harder for victims.
The politics surrounding Khan’s removal require careful separation. Supporters of warrants connected to Gaza feared that the disciplinary process might be used to undermine those cases. Palestinian representatives, however, said the removal vote was not a proxy decision on any investigation. Existing warrants remain legal decisions of the court’s judges.
That distinction is central to the institution’s credibility. A court created to prosecute grave abuses cannot treat alleged misconduct by its own leader as irrelevant. It must also prevent an internal disciplinary case from becoming a pretext for outside governments to erase investigations they oppose.
What to watch
The first milestone is a formal election procedure. Watch for rules on nominations, independent screening, staff safeguarding, public disclosure and consultation with civil society. The composition of any search committee will shape confidence in the result.
The deputies’ management decisions will also matter. Member states and court observers will look for continuity in active cases, protection for employees who report misconduct and evidence that the office can function without concentrating excessive authority in one person.
A vote is not expected before 2027, according to current reporting. Before then, the Assembly of States Parties must settle the nomination calendar and decide how much of the screening record the public will be allowed to see.
Sources
- International Criminal Court, The Hague: official response to the removal decision, English.
- Reuters via Internazionale, United Kingdom/Italy: replacement process, deputies, sanctions and withdrawals, English and Italian.
- Associated Press, United States/Netherlands: court continuity, selection history and legal challenge, English.
- Associated Press, United States/United Nations: removal vote and effects on active warrants, English.
- Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan: member-state response and commitment to the court, English.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and human editorial review. English-language ICC material and reporting from Dutch-based, international and member-state sources were checked. An Italian translation of the Reuters report was also reviewed.