International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan has been officially disqualified from overseeing the war crimes case against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, following a decision by ICC appeals judges on October 2, 2025. The ruling, first reported by Reuters, marks a significant development in one of the court’s most high-profile ongoing cases and comes amid a series of mounting challenges for the embattled prosecutor.
The decision stems from a conflict of interest claim raised by Duterte’s defense team in August 2025. They argued that Khan’s previous work representing the Philippines Human Rights Commission (PHRC)—specifically in naming Duterte as a prime suspect in the court’s investigation of the country’s bloody war on drugs—compromised his impartiality. According to documents seen by Reuters and other news outlets, the defense maintained that Khan’s earlier involvement with communications from victims to the ICC meant he could not conduct an unbiased investigation into Duterte’s alleged crimes.
Khan, for his part, denied any wrongdoing or bias. He had asked the panel of judges to reject the defense’s request, stating there was “no conflict of interest arising from his representation of the chair of the PHRC and a group of victims in relation to” communications with the ICC. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber sided with Duterte’s lawyers, concluding that Khan’s prior role might give the appearance of bias and thus disqualified him from the case. The court’s office of the prosecutor did not immediately respond to requests for comment, as reported by Reuters.
This is not the first time questions of impartiality have clouded Khan’s tenure at the ICC. In August 2025, judges ordered him to recuse himself from an entirely separate investigation into Venezuela, citing a potential conflict of interest involving his sister-in-law, a criminal lawyer representing the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. These decisions have only compounded the scrutiny around Khan, who stepped aside from his role as chief prosecutor in May 2025 amid an ongoing United Nations inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct. Khan’s attorneys have firmly denied all accusations of wrongdoing in that matter.
The Duterte case, now left in the hands of deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, remains the only major active prosecution currently before the ICC, which is already grappling with the weight of U.S.-imposed sanctions. Niang himself is no stranger to controversy, as he faces sanctions from Washington due to the court’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Israel in Gaza. According to Reuters, the ICC’s ongoing probe into the Gaza conflict led judges to issue arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri, citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Duterte, who served as president of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, was arrested in March 2025 and transported to The Hague on an arrest warrant linking him to thousands of murders committed during his administration’s controversial anti-drug campaign. The campaign, which Duterte once described as a necessary crackdown on crime, has been widely condemned by international human rights organizations and observers, who allege that it resulted in the extrajudicial killing of alleged narcotics peddlers and users. Duterte has consistently maintained that his arrest was unlawful, characterizing it as tantamount to kidnapping.
The former president, now 80 years old, has been declared by his legal team as unfit to stand trial. This claim adds yet another layer of complexity to a case already fraught with legal, political, and ethical challenges. The ICC has not yet commented on the status of Duterte’s health or the potential implications for the trial’s timeline.
The recent disqualification of Khan not only disrupts the momentum of the Duterte prosecution but also raises broader questions about the ICC’s ability to maintain impartiality and credibility in its most sensitive investigations. The court, headquartered in The Hague, was established to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. However, it has often found itself under fire from various quarters—sometimes accused of bias, other times criticized for failing to act decisively against powerful figures or nations.
The decision to remove Khan from the Duterte case was based not on proven misconduct, but on the potential for perceived bias—a standard that, while designed to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings, can have far-reaching consequences for the court’s operations. As noted by The Straits Times, the ruling has not yet been made public in full, but its implications are already rippling through legal and diplomatic circles.
Meanwhile, the ICC’s broader docket continues to draw global attention. In addition to the Duterte and Gaza cases, the court’s investigation into Venezuela remains active, though Khan’s recusal in that matter has further complicated proceedings. The United States, which has historically maintained a complicated relationship with the ICC, has imposed sanctions on several of the court’s officials, including deputy prosecutor Niang, in response to its investigations into American and allied personnel.
For the Philippines, the case against Duterte is a watershed moment. His presidency was defined by a hardline stance on crime and drugs, but also by widespread allegations of human rights abuses. The ICC’s pursuit of accountability for the thousands of deaths attributed to his anti-drug policies has been both lauded and criticized within the country and abroad. Supporters of Duterte argue that the campaign was necessary to restore order and protect communities, while critics contend that it trampled on basic rights and amounted to state-sanctioned murder.
As the case moves forward without Khan, all eyes are now on deputy prosecutor Niang and the Appeals Chamber, which must navigate not only the legal complexities but also the intense political pressure surrounding the proceedings. The outcome will likely shape perceptions of the ICC’s effectiveness and independence for years to come.
With so many moving parts—allegations of conflicts of interest, ongoing investigations into other global hotspots, and the ever-present threat of political interference—the ICC finds itself at a crossroads. The disqualification of its chief prosecutor in such a high-profile case is a stark reminder of the challenges facing international justice in an increasingly polarized world.
For now, the Duterte prosecution remains on track, albeit with new leadership and under the shadow of controversy. Whether the court can deliver justice, and do so credibly, is a question that only time—and the careful work of its remaining prosecutors—will answer.