Exclusive: Staff in Karim Khan's office write in support of his return to ICC
A group of staff members at the International Criminal Court (ICC), describing themselves as the "silent majority", have written to the court’s governing body twice since last week, in support of prosecutor Karim Khan returning to his duties, Middle East Eye can reveal.
MEE reported last month that a panel of judges appointed by the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s governing body, concluded that a United Nations investigation had not established any "misconduct or breach of duty" by Khan.
But MEE later reported that a majority of ASP members on Wednesday backed a motion to disregard the judges' report, and suggesting that Khan may have committed some form of misconduct.
The ASP's executive bureau of 21 diplomats has until Thursday to provide its preliminary assessment of allegations of misconduct against the prosecutor. Legal experts have warned that the bureau's disregard for the judges' opinion risks politicising the misconduct probe.
An internal email sent by ICC staff working at the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) on 31 March, one day ahead of the motion vote, expressed support for the prosecutor's return, based on the panel of judges' conclusion that no misconduct had been established against him. The letter was sent anonymously to the ASP presidency through a staff channel, on behalf of a "sizeable group" of OTP staff.
A second letter, sent a week later on Tuesday, was addressed from "a majority of staff of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor from different regional and gender backgrounds".
It said: "The majority of OTP staff have supported an independent accountability process that respects the rule of law to establish conviction or innocence without any external influence.
"The issue at hand is the alleged misconduct of the Prosecutor, and if the findings of the Panel of Judges lack evidence against the Prosecutor, then we welcome his return."
The letter added: "The majority of staff appreciates the Prosecutor for his hard work and his leadership which yielded unprecedented successes in the work of the Office in the past years. The views of a minority regarding his leadership style or personality is not the issue under investigation."
It further said: "We see concerning signs of political interventions and individual agendas that are dictating what we are observing of smearing campaigns and undue pressures on the public opinion, the Bureau and the ASP.
"The timing and motive behind these campaigns seem clear - to pressure the Bureau and the ASP to decide based on such campaigns, rather than according to the objective judicial findings of the Panel of Judges that was established by the Bureau itself."
Last week's letter by OTP staff expressed concern over a statement submitted on 25 March to the Hague Working Group by the ICC’s Staff Union Council, which represents staff at the court.
That statement, seen by MEE, said that many OTP staff “are experiencing heightened anxiety, and in some cases even panic and fear.”
It argued, “that the Court has a duty of care toward all parties involved, including the obligation to safeguard them from any form of retaliation.”
But the letter by OTP staff last week rejected the Staff Union's use of "many" as inaccurate. It said that many OTP staff have supported both the rights of the prosecutor and the complainant.
The report by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) presented evidence and counter-evidence from complainants and Khan, but, according to the subsequent judges' panel report, “either did not reach conclusive factual determinations or concluded that such determinations were impossible based on the evidence collected”.
The judges said the report relied on hearsay evidence in the absence of direct evidence of misconduct, which they assessed as carrying less evidential weight.
'The issue at hand is the alleged misconduct of the Prosecutor, and if the findings of the Panel of Judges lack evidence against the Prosecutor, then we welcome his return'
- ICC staff letter
They concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct measured against the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt".
MEE reported last Thursday that a group of disproportionately western and European states voted at the bureau meeting on Wednesday to disregard the panel of judges and make their own assessment based on the UN report.
The 15 states that backed the motion were Belgium; Bolivia; Brazil; Chile; Cyprus; Ecuador; Finland; Italy; Japan; Latvia; New Zealand; Poland; Slovenia; South Korea; and Switzerland.
The bureau is expected to make a final judgment on the alleged misconduct in early June.
According to an internal ASP bureau document seen by MEE, if the bureau recommends a finding of serious misconduct, the ASP will first vote on whether the prosecutor engaged in serious misconduct, less serious misconduct, or no misconduct.
Any finding of misconduct would require a two-thirds majority of the states present and voting.
If the ASP votes to find serious misconduct, it would then hold a second vote on whether to remove the prosecutor.
A vote to remove Khan would require an absolute majority of the 125-member ASP (63 votes).
Letter against Khan
The Wall Street Journal has reported that a letter by anonymous OTP staff members opposing Khan returning to his role was read out during last Wednesday's bureau meeting.
It said: “We are of the view that the reported [UN investigation] findings are incompatible with continued confidence in the prosecutor’s leadership," in reference to the evidence provided to the UN investigators by Khan's accusers, despite the judges' determination that the evidence did not establish proof of misconduct.
The letter was published in full by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) late last week.
It's unclear why only that letter was read out at the bureau meeting to members of the body, but not the letter in support of the prosecutor's return.
MEE has asked the ASP for comment.
The latest letter by OTP staff on Tuesday said that "the recent letter [last week] communicated to the media and the Bureau of the ASP by allegedly some OTP staff has forced us not to remain silent".
It added: "The timing of these recent public statements to the Bureau of the ASP and to the public raise serious questions about the objective behind such statements, as they represent in reality an undue influence on the outcome of the findings of the Panel of Judges and the ASP decision on that."
Khan has been on leave since last May, pending the conclusions of the investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against him - although he has always strenuously denied the allegations.
Questions over 'political considerations'
In their first public statement last Thursday, Khan's lawyers, Tayab Ali and Sareta Ashraph, said the prosecutor had yet to receive any correspondence from the bureau.
They said the investigators "did not make determinative findings of any misconduct or breach of duty within their 137 actual findings". The UN report presented allegations that required a legal assessment, they said, and the judges concluded “that the material does not establish any misconduct or breach of duty of any kind”.
The lawyers added: "If it is the case that this conclusion has instead been set aside, it raises cogent and troubling questions about whether political considerations have been allowed to displace legal judgment.”
Khan and the ICC itself have faced an intensifying intimidation campaign over its investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza, with the prosecutor, his two deputies and numerous judges subjected to US sanctions.
MEE reported last August that pressure on the prosecutor involved threats and warnings directed at Khan by prominent politicians, close colleagues and family friends briefing against him, fears for the prosecutor’s safety prompted by a Mossad team in The Hague, and media leaks about sexual misconduct allegations.
Pressure on Khan started to build in April 2024, as he prepared to apply for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes, and again in October 2024, a month before the ICC judges issued the warrants.
Pressure intensified further in early 2025 as Khan was reported to be seeking warrants for more Israeli ministers, and coincided with further media leaks about the sexual misconduct allegations. The Trump administration sanctioned Khan in February that year.
Khan then went on leave in mid-May, shortly after an attempt to suspend him, prompted by a senior member of his own office, failed, and amid the UN investigation into the allegations of misconduct.
This article was sourced from Middle East Eye.
Read Full Article on Middle East Eye →