AS if we needed further proof, the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry has now published details of the harrowing and devastating impact of the ongoing genocide in Gaza – documenting targeted killings of Palestinian children, intentional injuries, detention-related abuses, attacks on hospitals and schools – with severe long-term harm and destruction to children’s health, education and development.
The findings are a stark reminder of why international accountability mechanisms exist in the first place – to provide accountability, regardless of the skin colour of perpetrator and victim.
In quick succession, the very institutions tasked with pursuing accountability are met with swift reprisals and vengeance by the United States and other enablers of Israel’s ongoing war crimes.
Three judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) are currently challenging sanctions imposed by the United States following decisions linked to investigations involving Israel and the United States.
The sanctions, imposed after the ICC’s actions involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and earlier investigations concerning Afghanistan, have renewed concerns about whether international judicial officers can perform their duties free from harmful threats to their very safety and well-being.
This development follows a growing number of controversies involving international officials engaged in investigations related to Palestine.
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has spoken publicly about being sanctioned, threatened and other treacherous moves taken to both silence and discredit her work, while former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda previously disclosed allegations of pressure and intimidation during the Court’s investigations.
Against this backdrop comes the ongoing debate surrounding ICC prosecutor Karim Khan. When taken together, they raise a broader question that extends beyond any single prosecutor, judge or investigator.
Can international justice institutions function independently when threatened just for denouncing injustice, violence and war crimes committed by powerful states and their allies?
That is the question at the heart of the current debate.
No individual should be above scrutiny. That principle applies whether one is a head of state, a public official or the prosecutor of the ICC.
But accountability and due process are not competing principles. They are mutually reinforcing; one cannot credibly exist without the other.
Khan’s ongoing removal from the ICC should shock and instil fear in right-thinking nations – not because he is beyond criticism or because allegations should be ignored, but because serious allegations deserve serious investigation. Complainants deserve dignity, protection and a fair process.
Yet, institutions also have a responsibility to respect the processes they themselves establish.
The Assembly of States Parties (ASP) appointed the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services to investigate the allegations against Khan.
The findings of that investigation were then referred to a panel of judges tasked with advising the ASP Bureau on whether the evidence established serious misconduct, less serious misconduct or no misconduct at all.
After reviewing the material before them, the judges concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish misconduct according to the applicable standard of proof.
This point should not be lost in the debate. The issue is not whether Khan should be beyond scrutiny. He should not.
The issue is whether findings reached through an independent process can simply be revisited because some are dissatisfied with the outcome.
The ASP appointed the investigators. The investigation was conducted. The findings were independently assessed. A judicial panel specifically entrusted with reviewing the evidence reached a conclusion.
If concerns remain about the legal standard applied or the process itself, there are established legal mechanisms through which those concerns may be addressed.
What should concern us is the notion that an institution may choose to revisit a determination simply because the outcome proves inconvenient.
Rules must apply even when outcomes are uncomfortable. Otherwise, confidence in institutions begins to erode.
The real question extends beyond any one individual. What precedent do we set when findings produced through an agreed process can be set aside without a clear legal basis?
What message does it send when independent assessments are treated as provisional, contingent upon whether their conclusions are politically acceptable?
The issue is not Khan; it is whether institutions remain guided by evidence, procedure and the rule of law, or whether established processes become vulnerable to shifting political pressures.
Power and legitimacy are not the same thing.
An institution may possess the authority to revisit a matter. But authority alone does not answer the question of whether it should do so after an independent process has already been undertaken and a judicial assessment has already been made.
The credibility of international institutions rests not only on the causes they champion but also on their willingness to uphold their own procedures consistently.
Trust is built when rules are respected, regardless of who benefits from the outcome. Trust is weakened when conclusions are treated as negotiable.
For countries such as Malaysia, which have consistently argued that international law should apply equally and that no state or individual should be above accountability, this principle cannot be selective.
The same commitment to fairness and due process that we expect from international justice must also be reflected in the governance of the institutions entrusted with delivering it.
Respecting a judicial finding does not mean shielding anyone from accountability. It means respecting the integrity of a process designed to arrive at an impartial assessment of the facts.
If we believe in accountability, we must also believe in due process. If we believe in institutional independence, we must be prepared to uphold it even when outcomes are contested.
The issue is bigger than any individual office-holder. It is about whether international institutions remain anchored in law and procedure or whether their decisions become vulnerable to reconsideration whenever political circumstances change.
That is the principle at stake. And it is a principle worth defending.
We cannot, in good conscience, allow for the removal of Khan simply because the outcome of an independent process has become politically inconvenient.
To do so would not merely undermine one prosecutor; it would weaken the very institutions entrusted with upholding international law and the rules-based international order.
If we are serious about justice, then we must be equally serious about protecting the independence, integrity and credibility of those institutions – even, and especially, when they are called upon to hold the powerful to account.
Anything less would diminish not only the ICC, but our collective faith in international justice itself.
The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
