[This is the headline over a report in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The government "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of key Lockerbie trial witness Tony Gauci, despite claims his evidence wrongly incriminated the Libyan man convicted of the bombing.
The Justice Ministry was forced to issue a denial yesterday after British newspaper The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed Maltese official legal sources saying Malta wanted to look at Mr Gauci's claims.
The ministry said in a statement: "Government categorically denies that any government official said that the Maltese government is preparing to look into the testimony Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the trial. The Maltese government is not prepared to do any such thing."
The government's statement was criticised yesterday by the man appointed by the UN to monitor the Lockerbie trial as well as the father of one of the victims.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, both men urged the Maltese authorities to press ahead with an investigation "in the interests of truth and justice". (...)
The government yesterday reiterated that since 1988 successive Maltese governments had "always maintained the bomb which downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced".
The architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish lawyer Robert Black, backed the government's stand when contacted yesterday, insisting that a broader inquiry would make more sense.
"I was very surprised by The Daily Telegraph story. I would be amazed if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness.
"Malta can be realistically asked to support an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie case, which would also include the testimony of Tony Gauci, which is the weakest link in the whole affair," Prof. Black said.
His view contrasted with that of Prof. Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial.
"I regret Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations. The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," Prof. Koechler said when contacted.
Only last Sunday he had urged the Maltese authorities to launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question Mr Gauci.
Prof. Koechler's report after the trial that found Mr Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.
Meanwhile, the father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Jim Swire, said any objective reinvestigation of the Al-Megrahi case "would be welcome".
However, he expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci.
"So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become that much depends on how far the Maltese are prepared to go to clear their island's name, despite the immediate US displeasure that is no doubt already descending upon them following The Daily Telegraph article," he said.
Dr Swire insisted the evidence from Malta against Mr Al-Megrahi was always "deeply flawed".
"The identification of the buyer and the date of the sale of the clothes were never satisfactorily established, as objective Maltese investigators would no doubt have confirmed," he said. Identifying the date the clothes were bought was also crucial, he added, since for Mr Al-Megrahi to be relevant to the whole affair the purchase had to have taken place in early December.
Mr Al-Megrahi was in Malta at that time but a thorough investigation would have led the Maltese authorities to conclude that the sale actually happened towards the end of November, Dr Swire explained, when the Libyan was not in Malta.
He also highlighted that a senior member of the Scots' team (Harry Bell) recorded during his visits to the island that the US authorities were offering Mr Gauci $10,000 up front and $2 million to follow.
"This must be significant and Maltese investigators might have been able now to access details of this scandalous attempt at witness bribery by looking at the documentation provided by the Megrahi defence team," Dr Swire said, calling on the Maltese government to show resolve and carry out its own investigation.
[What I intended to convey to the Maltese journalist was that an inquiry by the authorities in Malta confined to the testimony of Tony Gauci (which is what the article in The Daily Telegraph suggested was about to happen) would have been inappropriate. If the Maltese Government were prepared to institute an inquiry into the whole of the evidence supposedly showing a Maltese connexion to Lockerbie, I would support this unreservedly. But, since it is most unlikely to happen, what people should be pressing the Maltese Government to do is to support the request to the General Assembly of the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of enquiry.
A letter in the same newspaper supportive of the idea of an inquiry can be read here.]
The George Cross island.
ReplyDeleteI take my hat off to the 4th estate in Valletta, in particular to those at the Times of Malta, for generating so much public debate on Lockerbie over the last few weeks. As yet however, it remains to be seen how much of said will make it on to the floor of the debating chamber of the Maltese parliament.
Of all the states involved in this monstrous tale of woe, Malta, on the face of it, has the most to gain and the least to lose by supporting a public inquiry. Malta has been tarred by the brush of others in this affair, not by one of its own making. All other states seem to be compromised in one manner or another. Libya is compromised by massive international trade deals and inward investment. Holyrood has descended into an intense bout of navel gazing and political point scoring restricted to the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi’s release. Westminster basks in repose on the Laurus Nobilis of its Public Interest Immunity Certificate and constantly passes the buck to Edinburgh everytime the word ‘inquiry’ raises its ugly head; despite New Labour’s self-righteous protestations when in opposition that there ought to be one. Promises, promises. Then there is Washington. Alas, what can one say? And the choice of weapon employed by the ‘Beast of Lockerbie’? Why, the Crown Office of course: an institution which swims in a cesspool of its own creation dispensing every obstruction it can lay its mitts on to prevent an independent inquiry being established. And Malta?
Since the first week of October, the Maltese government has been in possession of a letter from Prof Black asking them to table a motion to open a UN General Assembly inquiry. Doubtless there are background issues here that are not in the public domain. I therefore leave you with a very apposite question asked by one of the commentators on the Times of Malta web site a couple of days ago.
“The citizens of Malta demand that the government will do whatever is possible to remove the bad name this case has given to our country. It is the least it can do for its people. Incredible! I thought that we would grasp the opportunity with both hands.
So my question is: WHY NOT? What is holding us?” E. Azzopardi.
The George Cross island is probably under some considerable external pressure, Quincey (eg Dr Swire has "expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci").
ReplyDeleteI'm confident that the Maltese government will do what is right, and that, thanks to Malta, a United Nations inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster will soon take place.