The First Removal of an ICC Chief Prosecutor: Misconduct Allegations, a Secret Vote, and the Netanyahu Connection

The UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigated and reported its findings in December 2025 . In March 2026, three ICC judges appointed by the bureau unanimously concluded that the OIOS factual findings "do not establish misconduct or breach of duty" by Khan . Despite that finding, the ICC's management oversight body determined the allegations were credible and recommended dismissal .

On June 8, 2026, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties voted confidentially to suspend Khan and forwarded the matter to all 125 member states . The UK Bar Standards Board separately suspended Khan from practicing law in England and Wales . Khan's legal team has argued the case was "politicised" and brought against him specifically because he pursued the Netanyahu warrant .

Procedural Changes Before the Vote

On July 2, 2026, the ICC's executive bureau changed the voting procedure from a two-stage process to a single vote, in what Middle East Eye described as "an apparent break with its own rules" . This change lowered the procedural threshold for removal and was approved by a majority of the bureau . Khan's supporters have cited this rule change as evidence of an orchestrated outcome .

Critics of the process argue that consolidating the misconduct finding and the removal decision into a single vote made it harder for member states to separate the factual question (did misconduct occur?) from the political question (should he be removed?).

The ICC Member State Vote

The vote took place on July 24, 2026, at an emergency closed-door session at UN headquarters in New York . The threshold for removal was 63 votes — an absolute majority of the 125 member states . The result was 82 member states voting to remove Khan for "serious misconduct and serious breach of duty" . The vote was secret . It was the first-ever removal of an ICC chief prosecutor .

Connection to the Netanyahu Arrest Warrant

The arrest warrant against Netanyahu is central to the controversy around Khan's ouster. Khan announced he was seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in May 2024 — the same period the misconduct allegations became public . In November 2025, Israel formally asked the ICC to throw out the Netanyahu warrant, arguing that the sexual misconduct allegations against Khan should disqualify him from the case and invalidate the warrant . After the removal, Netanyahu said the dismissal "exposes the truth" and claimed Khan issued the arrest warrant "to divert attention from the allegations against him" .

The removal does not cancel the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, which remain legally in effect . However, the political and procedural machinery that produced Khan's ouster has fueled accusations that the process was weaponized to protect the Israeli leader.

The UN Special Rapporteur's Claim

Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said on July 25 that Khan's removal "cannot be read in isolation from the campaign to overturn the arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." She stated that "Khan's removal lines up neatly with the fight to neutralise" the Netanyahu warrant . This is the clearest high-level allegation from within the UN system that the dismissal was politically motivated to undermine the Netanyahu case.

Albanese's statement was quickly amplified by Khan's supporters and by organizations critical of Israel, while proponents of the removal pointed to the disciplinary findings and the oversight body's determination that the allegations were credible .

Summary of Positions

The available evidence presents two competing narratives. One, supported by the oversight body's conclusion and the size of the vote, holds that a legitimate disciplinary process ran its course. The other, argued by Khan, Albanese, and other critics, holds that the process was manipulated — most notably through the procedural rule change — to accomplish a political goal. The rule change alone does not prove politicization, but it has become a focal point for those who argue that due process was sacrificed to expedite Khan's removal.

What Comes Next

Khan's lawyers have pledged to challenge the outcome through all available legal mechanisms, though commentators note that the Rome Statute does not provide a clear avenue for appeal of a member-state removal vote . The arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant remain in effect, but their practical force has been undercut by the controversy surrounding the prosecutor who sought them. The ICC now faces the challenge of appointing a successor while navigating deep internal divisions and external pressure from the United States, which has ramped up its attacks on the court .