TODAY I listened to Sarah's exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour pertaining to her allegations against ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan. My thoughts are as follows:
1. The timing exposes a clear intent to sway votes
Sarah’s decision to grant an exclusive CNN interview just one week before the ICC Assembly of States Parties vote is no coincidence. With 125 member states set to decide on Prosecutor Karim Khan’s future, this carefully staged public appearance has one purpose: to bypass proper legal procedures and pressure member states through media manipulation. Anyone who respects the rule of law must firmly reject this tactic.
2. The Independent judicial reviews have already cleared the Prosecutor
The most decisive rebuttal to Sarah’s claims is that three independent legal processes have fully examined her allegations.
- The UN OIOS conducted a thorough investigation.
- The ICC Presidency appointed an independent judicial panel of 3 senior jurists – Seymour Panton (Jamaica), Paul Lemmens (Belgium), and Bess Nkabinde Theron (South Africa). After three months reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, they unanimously concluded that the evidence did not establish misconduct or dereliction of duty.
Sarah’s interview merely recycles old complaints that have already been dismissed.
3. There is a question mark over Sarah’s motives and credibility.
Sarah claims her complaint was unrelated to any foreign government, yet multiple facts point in the opposite direction:
- She urged Khan to take a more cautious approach to warrants against Israel.
- Immediately after Khan issued arrest warrants, the US sanctioned the ICC and threatened that “any action against Israel is an action against you.”
Is Sarah being used by certain powers to discredit a Prosecutor, or is she using this to gain favour with these powerful nations and advance her own career?
4. The ICC Presidency’s conduct is a grave breach of due process
Even more alarming is that after the independent judicial panel delivered a finding of no misconduct, the Presidency did not accept that conclusion – instead, it suspended Khan and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties.
This stands in complete opposition to the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
Conclusion
This interview is a blatant attempt to substitute trial by media for due legal process. I strongly call on all member states to reject such media influence and base their judgment on the unanimous findings of the independent judicial panel based on a due process of law.
They should recognise this case for what it is – not a proven misconduct case, but allegations already dismissed by professional judicial bodies, now politically weaponised to serve a specific agenda.
Friday’s vote will determine whether the ICC can uphold the principles of fairness, independence, and due process that it demands of others. - July 20, 2026
Datuk Dr Siva Ananthan
Dr Siva Ananthan is a graduate in Law from the University of London and is 40 years veteran of the legal fraternity, having founded Advance Tertiary College in 1987. He has also served as a Governing Council Member of the ASEAN Law Association, as President of the National Association of Private Educational Institution and as a Director of the Pan Pacific Association for Private Education.
.jpeg)
