[This is the heading over three letters published in today's edition of The Herald. They read as follows:]
The defection of Muammar Gaddafi’s foreign minister (...) may be a case of a rat deserting a sinking ship, prematurely.
When Moussa Koussa baled out, the rebel forces were at the gates of Sirtre, Gaddafi’s home town. Had that fallen it would have been game over for Gaddafi.
We should, though, welcome the junking of Mr Koussa’s loyalty to the colonel for the light he might shed on the Lockerbie bombing for which he was allegedly responsible.If the allegation has merit then the UK and US will have a casus belli against the colonel himself, who must have given the order.
On the other hand, Mr Koussa may share the view of the US Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence bureaux around the globe, that the bombing of Pan Am 103 was ordered by Iran using a Syrian-based proxy, the PFLP-GC. In which case, a can of worms inside a Pandora’s box is opened; not least for Scottish politicians now on the election stump.
The French Napoleonic justice system identified Gaddafi’s brother [-in-law] Abdullah Senoussi as the main perpetrator of the UTA aircraft bombing which followed Lockerbie, but Mr Koussa was not found to have been a perpetrator.
The Scottish system of justice had nothing to say in the Lockerbie case about any Libyan other than the two men, indicted by them and presented for trial, Al Amin Khalifa Fhima and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
The French reaction underlines the importance of Scottish investigators having access to Mr Koussa to find out whether he can help with their claimed active and ongoing criminal investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy.
If the profound doubts many of us have over the conviction of Megrahi were to be supported by Mr Koussa’s contribution, it might finally galvanise the Scots into examining at last why their Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, after studying the case for three years, came to the conclusion that the Zeist trial might have been a miscarriage of justice.
At the elections next month, voters might like to consider which candidates are most likely to support sweeping reforms to their criminal justice system, and vote for them.
Meanwhile Mr Koussa has not been accused (except in the US) over either atrocity, and his presence here, if he is treated with courtesy, may encourage others to defect.
Dr Jim Swire
Why do Scottish prosecutors insist on ignoring what is undoubtedly the only independent report on the case against Megrahi, and on taking serious steps to ensure the report is never published? The SCCRC found six grounds to suggest a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial.
Those findings make up a report which all of us should be free to read, yet we have been denied this right. Politicians do not have the right to interfere with our justice system in order to prevent uncomfortable truths from being exposed about particular cases, and nor does the judiciary have the right to delay the hearing of appeals related to those cases. Yet it has happened in this case.
Consider some of those truths: the US paid two witnesses, the Gauci brothers, $3 million for testimony. In fact, let’s stop right there. Had the US told the Scottish court at Zeist that it intended to pay such vast sums to any witness in that trial, those witnesses would have been rejected immediately. Scots law would have deemed it bribery.
Let us not rely on Mr Koussa. Let us begin with the SCCRC report. That, at least, is independent. It was almost four years in the making and cost a fortune. It should not be wasted.
Mrs J Greenhorn