When Justice Becomes Politics: The Dangerous Incentive to Change the Narrative

The dismissal of International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan marks one of the most dramatic crises in the Court’s history. ICC member states voted to remove him after an investigation into allegations of serious sexual misconduct, allegations that Khan has consistently denied. 

Whether Khan is ultimately judged guilty or innocent in the court of public opinion is not the central issue. The more important question is what happens when senior public officials who themselves become the subject of serious allegations continue to wield enormous political and legal power.

The timing inevitably raises uncomfortable questions.

In May 2024, Khan requested arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, placing the ICC at the centre of one of the world’s most polarising geopolitical conflicts. The decision generated global headlines, intense political debate, and unprecedented international attention. It also transformed Khan himself into perhaps the best-known ICC prosecutor in history.

It is impossible to prove that the Netanyahu case was intended to distract from Khan’s own mounting legal and ethical problems. However, the sequence of events inevitably invites scrutiny. Public officials under personal pressure sometimes have strong incentives to redefine the public conversation. Throughout political history, leaders facing investigations have occasionally embraced highly visible confrontations, ideological campaigns, or international disputes that shift media attention away from themselves.

This phenomenon is hardly unique to international justice.

Modern politics increasingly rewards symbolic battles over practical governance. Highly public confrontations generate headlines, mobilise supporters and create moral narratives in which criticism of the individual becomes criticism of the cause itself.

New York provides another contemporary illustration.

Zohran Mamdani has rapidly become one of the most visible progressive politicians in the United States. His outspoken positions on Israel have become central to his public profile and have generated enormous national attention. Supporters see principled activism; critics argue that these issues often dominate debate while diverting attention from difficult questions about municipal governance, crime, housing affordability, public transport, and fiscal management. Regardless of one’s political views, the political incentive is clear: emotionally charged international issues often attract far more attention than complex domestic policy.

The pattern extends well beyond Khan or Mamdani.

Politicians, prosecutors and public officials increasingly operate within an attention economy where visibility itself becomes political capital. In such an environment, controversial legal actions, sweeping moral declarations and polarising rhetoric can all serve to reshape the public agenda.

This does not mean every controversial prosecution is politically motivated. Nor does it mean every outspoken politician is attempting to distract from domestic challenges. Such claims require evidence, not speculation.

But democratic societies should remain alert to a broader institutional risk: when individuals entrusted with immense public authority face personal crises, they may have powerful incentives—consciously or unconsciously—to pursue actions that redirect public attention toward larger political battles.

Justice depends not only upon independence but also upon public confidence.

That confidence suffers whenever prosecutors appear to become political actors, whenever politicians appear to substitute symbolism for governance, or whenever institutions become vehicles for personal survival rather than impartial public service.

The lesson from the Karim Khan affair is therefore larger than one individual or one court. Institutions are strongest when they separate personal interests from public duties. When that separation becomes blurred, every controversial decision invites suspicion, even where none may ultimately be justified.

The challenge for modern democracies is not merely to ensure that justice is done. It is to ensure that justice is never perceived as another instrument in the politics of distraction.