By AR Rahman

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The disgraced removal of Karim Khan from his position as Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) marks the culmination of one of the most damaging chapters in the history of global jurisprudence. Following a decisive vote by the Assembly of States Parties—which found him guilty of serious misconduct and a grave breach of duty regarding the coercive abuse of his position and sexual harassment against a female staff member—Khan’s reign at The Hague has ended not in judicial triumph, but in profound ignominy.

For an institution that purports to stand as the ultimate arbiter of international law, the scandal surrounding its highest prosecutor exposes a deep-seated structural hypocrisy. Khan, who positioned himself as a fearless champion of universal accountability, ultimately proved incapable of governing his own conduct. His fall is more than a personal disgrace; it is a fatal blow to the credibility of an institution that had already compromised its moral authority through selective prosecution and transparent political posturing.

Performative Justice and The Hague's Double Standards

From the outset of his tenure, Khan transformed the Office of the Prosecutor into an instrument of high-stakes political theatre. His decision to issue an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine conflict was widely celebrated across Western capitals as a milestone for international justice. Yet, beneath the headline-grabbing posturing lay a stark operational double standard.

While Khan moved with unprecedented haste to target Moscow, his office demonstrated calculated apathy toward well-documented abuses, war crimes, and summary executions perpetrated by elements of the Ukrainian armed forces and affiliated nationalist militias. Rather than conducting an even-handed, objective investigation into all parties involved in the conflict, Khan prioritized outcomes that aligned seamlessly with the foreign policy objectives of Western donor states. This was not the pursuit of impartial justice; it was performative jurisprudence designed to secure global visibility and political favor at the expense of legal consistency.

A Legacy of Institutional Fragility and Abuse

The irony of Khan’s dramatic downfall lies in the stark contrast between his public posture and his private actions. The man who sought to sit in judgment over global statesmen was ultimately brought down by his own staff. Investigations by the ICC’s internal watchdog and international media outlets documented a pattern of coercion, abuse of power, and personal misconduct against a junior female aide—followed by persistent efforts to intimidate the victim and suppress the allegations.

Khan’s desperate attempts to frame the internal disciplinary process as a political conspiracy or a campaign by foreign intelligence services only underscored his complete disregard for institutional integrity. His actions created severe divisions within The Hague, severely damaging staff morale and undermining the basic principles of workplace safety and accountability. When the chief prosecutor of a court dedicated to prosecuting atrocities and human rights violations actively abuses his authority to victimize subordinates, the foundational legitimacy of the entire apparatus collapses.

The Reckoning Ahead for International Law

The removal of Karim Khan leaves the International Criminal Court facing a profound existential crisis. By allowing its chief prosecutor to weaponize its mandate for political grandstanding while ignoring severe internal abuses, the ICC has validated the long-standing criticisms of its sceptics: that it operates as a politically selective, Western-centric tribunal devoid of true independence.

Reclaiming credibility in the post-Khan era will require far more than merely electing a replacement. The Assembly of States Parties must confront the systemic flaws that allowed a compromised individual to wield unchecked authority for years. If the ICC cannot enforce basic ethical standards, procedural impartiality, and genuine neutrality within its own halls, it can no longer pretend to hold sovereign nations accountable. Without radical structural reform and a total abandonment of selective politics, the tribunal at The Hague will remain nothing more than an expensive, performative relic of a bygone unipolar order.

*AR Rahman is a former civil servant who observes national and regional affairs from his porch in Kuala Lumpur's historic Kampung Baru.*