Friday, 14 August 2009

Reaction from Christine Grahame MSP

Responding to the news that Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi has dropped his appeal SNP MSP Christine Grahame, who met several times with Megrahi in Greenock prison said:

“I believe that Mr Megrahi has come under pressure from certain quarters to drop his appeal. I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own.

“There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie. Some serious scrutiny will be required to determine exactly why Mr Megrahi is now dropping his appeal and examination of what pressure he has come under.

“A leaked email that I saw this week from an official in the Scottish Justice Department warned that senior Scottish officials were exerting undue pressure to have Megrahi drop his appeal. They appear to have been successful.

“Myself and other campaigners are however determined to fight on to get to the truth behind Lockerbie. The only proper course now is for a full public inquiry and I would restate my call for such an inquiry to be established at the earliest opportunity.

“In the next days, weeks and months new information will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103.”



    Terminally ill Abdelbaset al Megrahi was blackmailed shabbily to abandon his appeal for having the possibility to return to his family and die in his homeland.
    It is espected that in spite of the massive protest of the American victim's families and the US Justice Mr Abdelbasset al Megrahi is released around 21./22. August 2009 before for the beginning of Ramadan.

    *Mr. Megrahi's condition had taken a "significant turn for the worse" in recent weeks.
    As the appeal hearing has commenced, and the court seized of the matter, leave of the court is required before the appeal can be formally abandoned," a spokesman for legal firm Taylor & Kelly said.
    Approval from the court could pave the way for Megrahi's return home after Libya applied for him to be transferred to serve out his sentence." * (SKY News)

    Nevertheless the truth triumphs for Mr. Megrahi and Libya!

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  2. Christine Grahame MSP says:

    "Myself and other campaigners are however determined to fight on to get to the truth behind Lockerbie. The only proper course now is for a full public inquiry and I would restate my call for such an inquiry to be established at the earliest opportunity."

    The problems, as I see them, about a 'full public inquiry' are:

    a. Who appoints the inquiry chairman (Westminster, Holyrood, Crown Office, Justice Department)?

    b. Who sets the terms of reference for the inquiry (ditto)?

    c. Who pays?

    d. How long will it take?

    e. Will the inquiry have the power to institute proceedings, or is it restricted to making recommendations?

    Scotland's current 'Fingerprint Inquiry' is a case in point, and provides a useful indicator as to what a 'Lockerbie Bombing Inquiry' is likely to achieve.

    If Mr Megrahi's application to abandon his appeal is accepted on Tuesday 18 August 2009, the case will no longer be 'sub judice'. When that happens, I believe an international inquiry into the bombing should quickly be instituted.

    An excellent opportunity to set up such an inquiry will present itself on 23 September 2009 when the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, addresses the UN General Assembly in New York.

    In his UNGA speech, Gaddafi is expected to insist upon a 'United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing' - see

    Thus, the truth about the Lockerbie bombing may finally come out.

  3. The abandonment of the appeal makes no sense whatsoever unless one accepts that Megrahi has been got at. From the outset he has protested his innocence and been determined to prove it via the courts, indeed, in November of last year he stated to two members of the Justice for Megrahi Campaign that he would prefer to remain behind bars until such time as his name was cleared. Why the change? Especially if by dropping the appeal, it would come across as an admission of guilt and be bound to make the 'Hang Him High' camp feel justified in their belief that he has blood on his hands. In fact, only five minutes ago I heard an MSP express precisely this view on the BBC News Channel.
    The abandoning of an appeal is not a prerequisite to being granted compassionate release, and in this case simply serves to support claims that he doesn't deserve compassion. The shenanigans of the establishment that created this fiasco in the first instance still obtain even at this late stage; some are quite determined, it seems, to come out of this affair with clean hands no matter how dirty the war. So much so that granting him compassionate release with the prospect of his being acquitted before any potentially embarrassing evidence could emerge in further tranches is simply not sufficient.
    I recently asked a history lecturer to define Britain's role in world history, he replied: 'Duplicitous.' No change there then.