Exclusive: ICC bureau changes rules to lower threshold for Khan's removal

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has undergone a significant procedural shift concerning the potential removal of its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan. According to exclusive reports, the ICC's executive body—the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP)—has altered the voting mechanism for Khan's possible dismissal. Previously, the process required a two-stage vote: one to determine whether serious misconduct had occurred and another to decide on removal. Now, this has been streamlined into a single vote, where member states will simultaneously approve both the finding of misconduct and the removal itself. This change was approved by a majority of the Bureau during a recent meeting and signals a departure from established protocols.

The new procedure, set to be implemented when the ASP convenes in New York on 24 July, marks a pivotal moment in the ICC's internal governance. It follows a decision by the Bureau—a group of diplomats representing 21 member states—that concluded by a two-thirds majority that Khan had committed "serious misconduct." This determination came despite a judicial panel, appointed by the Bureau to assess the findings of a UN investigation into complaints against Khan, which concluded that the evidence presented did not sufficiently support any claims of misconduct.

Legal representatives for Khan have expressed strong concerns over the procedural changes. They argue that the revised process deviates from the written procedures outlined in March 2026, which specified a two-step approach. Under the previous guidelines, the ASP was required to first determine whether serious misconduct had indeed occurred before proceeding to a second vote on removal. Additionally, the threshold for such a determination was set at a two-thirds majority, whereas the new system allows for a simple majority. These legal professionals emphasized that altering the rules mid-process without informing the accused raises serious questions about the fairness and legality of the proceedings.

The ASP, composed of representatives from the ICC's 125 member states, holds the authority to make final decisions regarding misconduct allegations and the potential removal of the prosecutor. According to the court’s rules, any finding of misconduct requires the approval of a two-thirds majority of the states present and voting. If the ASP determines that serious misconduct has occurred, a subsequent vote on removal would then take place, requiring an absolute majority of the 125-member ASP (63 votes).

The allegations against Khan include four specific complaints, authorized by the Bureau, involving a former colleague who reportedly raised concerns about inappropriate conduct. While Khan has consistently denied these accusations, the situation has drawn considerable attention within the ICC and beyond. His tenure as chief prosecutor has been marked by controversy, particularly following his decision to seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which sparked political repercussions.

Karim Khan, born in Edinburgh to a British mother and a Pakistani father, has had a distinguished career in international law. He studied at King’s College London and became a Crown advocate in 2011. Before assuming the role of chief prosecutor, he represented high-profile cases related to genocide in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia. His election to the position was a politically charged process, with member states often lobbying for their preferred candidates. Despite initial challenges, Khan managed to secure the role through a combination of charm and persistence.

Within the ICC, Khan's leadership style has been described as both ambitious and sometimes impulsive. Former colleagues and employees have spoken about the tense environment and extraordinary demands that characterized his tenure. As the ASP prepares to deliberate on Khan's fate, the implications of this procedural change could reverberate throughout the institution, potentially reshaping its internal dynamics and external credibility. The upcoming vote on 24 July will be watched closely by observers around the world, keen to see how the ICC navigates this complex and sensitive issue.