editor
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken the unusual step of directing its Chief Prosecutor, Karim Ahmad Khan, to step aside from a politically sensitive investigation into alleged human rights violations in Venezuela, citing a perceived conflict of interest.
The decision, delivered by a five-judge panel from the ICC’s Appeals Chamber, came after it was revealed that Khan’s sister-in-law, Venkateswari Alagendra, is part of the legal team defending Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro against accusations of crimes against humanity. Alagendra’s involvement, the judges said, created a “reasonable appearance of bias,” which compromises the integrity of the proceedings.
Alagendra is the sister of Khan’s wife, Shyamala Alagendra, herself a respected human rights attorney. Both women have previously worked closely with Khan in notable international cases, including the defense of Kenya’s President William Ruto and Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The controversy first emerged in 2024 after a complaint was submitted by a human rights watchdog highlighting potential ethical issues. It claimed Khan’s family and professional links compromised his ability to independently prosecute the case. The court initially declined to act, but renewed interest and judicial review in 2025 resulted in the recent ruling.
Khan has publicly denied any misconduct, stating he had no interaction with his sister-in-law regarding the Venezuela matter, nor did they share legal strategies or confidential information. Nevertheless, ICC judges determined that public confidence in the court’s neutrality outweighed Khan’s defense, emphasizing that justice must be seen to be done.
Also Read; Sugar Wars: U.S. Sweetener Debate Meets Tanzania’s Supply Crisis
The ICC’s investigation into Venezuela, launched in 2021, is centered on alleged systematic abuses carried out by Venezuelan security forces since 2017. These include claims of extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, and arbitrary detention — all of which are prohibited under the Rome Statute, the treaty that governs the ICC.
Venezuela’s government has consistently denied wrongdoing, arguing that national authorities are already addressing such allegations. However, the ICC determined that local mechanisms were neither credible nor effective, triggering the principle of complementarity, which allows the ICC to intervene when justice is not served domestically.
With Khan on leave due to separate sexual misconduct allegations, and now officially ordered to recuse himself, responsibility for the Venezuela file is likely to fall to one of his deputies or to a temporary appointee. He has been given three weeks to submit his formal recusal request to the court’s presidency.
This move is seen as an attempt by the ICC to safeguard its legitimacy and maintain public trust, particularly at a time when the court faces mounting criticism over perceived inconsistencies in its global prosecutions—especially when comparing its approach to cases in Russia and Israel.
Legal experts say the decision reinforces the ICC’s obligation to uphold strict standards of impartiality. Human rights advocates have praised the ruling as a necessary corrective step.
“This sends a strong message that accountability and ethical standards apply to everyone—even to the highest officials at the court,” said one legal analyst based in Europe.
Still, others worry the development may cause further delays in the long-stalled case and diminish momentum in holding perpetrators in Venezuela accountable.
