Reporting frames it as more than personnel. Because the decision is made through the ICC’s governance machinery, states’ voting choices will test whether governments view the court’s accountability system as institutionally legitimate—especially as the controversy has become politically charged.

What states are voting on, and how the Rome Statute sets the rules

The legal basis is Article 46 of the Rome Statute, which governs removal from office. Under this provision, the Assembly decides by secret ballot. For the Prosecutor, the Statute requires an absolute majority of States Parties.

The challenged official also has due-process protections: Article 46 says the person whose conduct or ability is challenged must have a full opportunity to present and receive evidence and to make submissions in line with the ICC’s rules.

Why Khan is facing this vote: allegations he denies

AP reporting says Khan has been accused of sexual misconduct with a female aide—allegations he has steadfastly denied. The dispute has been processed through the ICC’s internal oversight and disciplinary framework, culminating in the Assembly’s removal vote.

Separately, Khan will not be present at the closed-door meeting: AP reports he is barred from entering the United States after being sanctioned over the ICC’s investigation into Israeli officials for the Gaza conflict.

Public signals before a secret ballot: Netherlands and France

Even though the ballot itself is secret, governments can make their positions public. Ahead of the vote, AP reports that the Netherlands (the ICC host state) and France are the only two countries that had made their support for removal public—an important clue that the “unclear outcome” could hinge on where other states land on the day.

So what changes if Khan is removed—and if he is not?

A removal decision would alter the ICC’s leadership trajectory, but it doesn’t automatically translate into a simple forecast for any particular investigation. The more immediate impact is on governance and legitimacy: states’ votes will show whether governments treat the court’s oversight process as credible even when the controversy cuts across major-power politics.

After the secret ballot, what to watch next includes:

• Post-vote statements from governments and the ICC about what the decision signals for the court’s institutional standing
• Procedural next steps under the Statute depending on whether removal is approved
• How governments discuss the ICC’s credibility amid the backdrop of U.S.–ICC sanctions and access restrictions

For U.S. and English-speaking readers, the practical bottom line is that this is a legitimacy test embedded in an administrative process—one that can shape how seriously states respond to future ICC accountability efforts.

Sources

• AP News — “A bruising ICC scandal heads to a secret vote on removing chief prosecutor”
• UN (Legal) — Rome Statute, Article 46 (Removal from office)