[This is the headline over a report published today on The Guardian website. Abdul Ati al-Obeidi was instrumental over the years in seeking a solution to the Lockerbie impasse and, latterly, in seeking repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi. From 1993 onwards (when I first became involved) he was chairman of the Libyan Government's Lockerbie committee. For a flavour of his involvement since 2007, type "Obeidi" into this blog's search facility. The article reads in part:]
Libya could hold free elections, supervised by the United Nations, within six months of the end of the conflict engulfing the country, its foreign minister has told The Guardian.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who took over from Moussa Koussa after his defection from Libya last month, said the regime was prepared to consider an interim national government before elections could be held. A six-month period had been discussed, he said.
Obeidi said discussions about reform included "whether the Leader [Muammar Gaddafi] should stay and in what role, and whether he should retire". Gaddafi's future has become a pivotal issue between the regime and the opposition, which has demanded his departure.
Obeidi said: "Everything will be on the table."
The minister struck a notably conciliatory tone when speaking in his Tripoli office to The Guardian, the BBC, ITN and the Washington Post. Asked about how diplomatic efforts could bridge the gulf between the Libyan government and the opposition, he said: "It is not a case of it going our way or their way, it's a case of how we can sit together with our brothers."
The international community must accept that Libya's future should be for Libyans alone to decide. "The US, Britain and France – sometimes those countries contradict themselves. They talk about democracy but when it comes to Libya, they say he [Gaddafi] should leave. It should be up to the Libyan people. This should not be dictated from any other head of state. It is against the principle of democracy." (...)
Obeidi accused western countries of standing in the way of a peace deal along the lines of the AU's proposal. "What's stopping it? Britain, France and to a certain extent the US are stopping it by continuing bombardment, arming the other side and making them more defiant."
The AU plan includes an immediate ceasefire, the delivery of humanitarian aid, the protection of foreign nationals in Libya, and dialogue between Libyan parties on the establishment of a transition period towards political reform.
Obeidi insisted that the Libyan government was ready to negotiate a ceasefire, involving all parties including Nato and monitored by international observers. "If there is a real ceasefire and these bombs stop, we could have a real dialogue among Libyans. It cannot be done with what is going on now."
The Libya government had been accused of not being serious about a ceasefire, he said. "This is not true." But, he added, a ceasefire needed a "mutual understanding and a mediator".
If Nato stopped its air strikes, Libyans would be able to resolve their differences. "We are all Libyans, their [the rebels'] blood is Libyan." His conciliatory tone towards the opposition was in marked contrast to the belligerence shown by other government officials who routinely speak of the rebels as "armed gangs" and "terrorists".
But, he said, the UK and France were impeding progress towards a ceasefire by offering military assistance to the rebels. The Anglo-French agreement to send a team of military advisers to Benghazi would "prolong the confrontation, there is no doubt about that".
"The more the west gives arms, the more they will plant hatred. We do not want to be another Iraq or Somalia. The west could advise the other side to listen to common sense and study the peace initiatives."
A ceasefire, Obeidi said, was "the only way to give peace a chance. The situation for sure is not so bright now. But I think we can have a light at the end of the tunnel."
[In an article in The Telegraph headlined In Libya and London, we’re getting into a frightful mess, Con Coughlin says:]
It is certainly hard to divine any coherent thinking in its latest decision to send a team of British military advisers to assist the Libyan rebels. After all, Mr Cameron and all the other ministers, officials and officers who sit on the NSC [National Security Council] understand as well as anyone that one of the primary objectives of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, was to persuade all the combatants to observe a ceasefire.
By sending British officers to Benghazi, the NSC risks undermining the very UN resolution that the Government, only a few weeks ago, fought so hard to secure. For these officers are not flying to Libya with the intention of arranging a ceasefire. They are going to turn the rebels into an effective fighting force that is capable of removing Gaddafi from power – which, of course, is what the Government really wants.
That is certainly how their arrival is being viewed by Gaddafi loyalists. Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan foreign minister, yesterday said, with some justification, that Britain’s tangible display of support for the rebels would harm the prospects for peace in Libya. But, then, the NSC’s decision to undertake a marked escalation in Britain’s involvement in the Libyan conflict reflects the central paradox that lies at the heart of the Government’s approach. The UN resolution authorises military action to be undertaken to protect innocent civilians, with a view to establishing a lasting ceasefire. But from the outset, Mr Cameron, together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama, has insisted that the ultimate objective is to bring about the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. Consequently, the NSC is constantly having to weigh up the conflicting requirements of supporting the UN’s humanitarian mission with Downing Street’s more ambitious agenda.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obeidi. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obeidi. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Sunday, 4 March 2012
The Megrahi mysteries
[This is the
headline over a long interview with Megrahi:
You are my Jury author John Ashton in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads in part:]
Ashton says he is in no doubt that
Scotland got the wrong man when Megrahi was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am
Flight 103 in December 1988 which instantly killed the 259 passengers and crew
aboard the plane and another 11 in the town of Lockerbie below.
Ashton also believes that those
responsible for the bombing may never be brought to justice and calls the trial
and conviction the "biggest scandal of Scotland's post-devolution
era" and an act that "disgraces Scotland's criminal justice system".
He says the evidence still held by
the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which investigated the
conviction as a possible miscarriage of justice, should be made public.
The SCCRC found six grounds on which
Megrahi's conviction was potentially unsafe. Both Megrahi and the Scottish
Government want publication of the 800-page report in the interests of
transparency, but this is subject to data-protection law which is reserved to
Westminster.
That means approval has to be given
by the key players in the case, including Megrahi, the Crown Office, Dumfries
and Galloway Police, and witnesses including the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci
whose evidence linking Meghrai to the bombing has been questioned.
QUESTION: Is Megrahi blocking the
publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report which
recommended that his case be returned to the Appeal Court in 2007? If not, who
is?
answer: No. His position is that
everything must be published and he says he will allow everything over which he
has a say to be published. He is happy for the evidence that doesn't stand in
his favour to come out as well. His line is everyone should put out all the
evidence. His beef is that 20 years after he was indicted, they are still
withholding stuff.
Q. Has Megrahi ever said who was
responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, or who he thinks did it?
A. No. And he won't. Because it was
nothing to do with Libya. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing
towards a Palestinian cell in Germany. But he's very clear on this. He said he
has been wrongly accused and it could be they have been as well. His line is we
have to concentrate on disproving the evidence against him not on proving it
against others. It is for the police to find the people who really did it, not
for him and his legal team.
Q. Did he have any – even tangential
– involvement or foreknowledge of the bombing?
A. No. That's my belief and that's
what he says.
Q. So if he is to be believed, we
have mass murderers on the loose that have not been dealt with in over 20
years. Has Megrahi ever raised any questions over seeking the real culprits?
A. He has sympathy for the bereaved
and thinks they have been cheated. But he is very reluctant to point fingers,
purely because of his own experience of being wrongly fingered.
Q. What about Megrahi's longevity
despite being given a few months to live because of his prostate-cancer
diagnosis?
A. The medical evidence was that the
three months [to live] was a realistic prognosis. But clearly there was
pressure on here. The Scottish Government as well as the UK Government, as well
as the Libyans – everyone – was desperate for confirmation that he might only
have a few months to live. It was a political fix, wasn't it? But that's not to
say there was any dishonesty on the part of the doctors.
Q. What proof is there that during a
meeting between Libyan diplomat Abdulati al-Obeidi and Justice Secretary Kenny
MacAskill on August 10, 2009, a suggestion was made that it would be easier to
gain compassionate release if Megrahi dropped his appeal? In what circumstances
did MacAskill have this conversation?
A. The story is that Obeidi who led
the Libyan delegation went for meetings with MacAskill and officials, and after
that they went to the prison to see Megrahi. Obeidi later said to Megrahi that,
during the meeting or at the end of the meeting, MacAskill had taken him to one
side and said: look it would be easier to grant compassionate release if
Megrahi dropped his appeal.
Q. So it is hearsay?
A. MacAskill has since fallen back on
the fact there was a minute of the meeting and it reflects what went on. It's a
load of waffle. If you look at it, it is one page long and a third of that page
is a list of attendees. It's five bullet points, it is incredible. In any case,
the whole point of taking someone aside is that it is not minuted.
Q. What do you make of MacAskill's
denial that he said it would be easier to release Megrahi on compassionate
grounds if he dropped his appeal.
A. It boils down to Obeidi's word
against MacAskill and Obeidi's a Gaddafi regime relic and under house arrest.
People will say Obeidi shouldn't be believed.
You have to look at motive. What was
Obeidi's motive for lying to Megrahi. There was huge pressure to get him home
and Obeidi maybe felt he could help persuade him. But beyond that, it is a bit
opaque. Gaddafi wanted the conviction overturned, he wanted to get back into
the international community and put the issue behind him. Then you look at
MacAskill's motive and that [would be] to save the criminal justice system in
Scotland a massive embarrassment.
They would be forced to account for
why all the evidence the SCCRC turned up that had not been disclosed to the
defence had been withheld. This would have been catastrophic for them, I think.
Also, the real killers have gone free.
One of the real scandals in this is
what resulted from the indictment that was issued against Megrahi and [his
co-accused] Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah 20 years ago. It should not be [MacAskill]
that is on the hot seat, it should be the then Lord Advocate. Because he should
have to answer to why there was non-disclosure of all the evidence.
But unfortunately what happens is
that we get Kenny McAskill having to yet again make comments on the release of
Megrahi. Until the government distances itself from the Crown Office on this
and says, yes, we need to get to the bottom of it and order an inquiry - this
is a scandal that will undermine the government. And MacAskill in that respect
is in the firing line.
Q. Why does Megrahi not restart his
appeal against conviction if he is innocent?
A. He's dying. He can't do those sort
of things. Getting through a day is difficult enough. He's had 10 years away
from his family. He would feel, yes, great if [he could clear his] name in
future but he has too much on his plate. He could have started it before but
the climate wasn't right for it. Nobody wanted an appeal before but now I think
for the Scottish Government, an appeal might be the least worse option. Now, I
know it is not within their gift to give it, but everyone is so up against the
wall now, I think, that it will be more damaging to refuse any application made
to appeal than to grant it.
I think his family may want to
[orchestrate an appeal], but they are managing his death. They have the rest of
their lives to do it. It is quite clear he won't be cleared while he's alive.
His daughter is a lawyer and if they don't Jim Swire will. [Swire, a supporter
of Megrahi, is the father of 23-year-old Flora who died in the atrocity]. It
would require an application to the SCCRC and that has to pass two tests.
One, is there a potential miscarriage
of justice, the answer to that is clearly yes because they have already said
that. Secondly, which is trickier, is whether it is in the interests of
justice. Then the circumstances of the abandonment of his appeal is important,
because you have to demonstrate that by doing that he was not admitting guilt.
Clearly he wasn't, but I think that's a hurdle he has to get over.
Q. So Megrahi wants a posthumous
appeal?
A. He definitely wants to clear his
name. We have not discussed the mechanism for a posthumous appeal but you can
take it as read that he would want it.
Q. What does Megrahi think of Jim
Swire's leading role in campaigning for him?
A. He's very touched and has massive
respect for him.
Q. Has Megrahi provided information
for any future appeal?
A. He's given it to the SCCRC
already. They have interviewed him at length, they have access to all his
precognition statements, they have everything they could need.
Q. How did Megrahi feel when Gadaffi
paid compensation for Lockerbie, effectively admitting Libyan guilt?
A. He wasn't happy. The Libyan
Government position was clear. They had to accept legal responsibility because
otherwise they couldn't get rid of the sanctions in place at the time.
Q. So he would say Libya weren't
responsible.
A. Oh yeah.
Q. When First Minister Alex Salmond
says he is irritated and frustrated by the book's claims, how do you react?
A. I share the frustration that the
attention has been on the issue of Megrahi's release, when it should be on the
Crown Office's failure to disclose evidence. Hopefully, the government are
coming round to being genuinely welcoming of the possibility of publication (of
the SCCRC report). If that's the case then they must know a lot of the flak
will come the way of the Crown Office.
Q. What do you want to see happen
now?
A. First, a full inquiry which will
cover why all the evidence was withheld from the trial. But I would also echo
the relatives' call for a broader inquiry into Lockerbie, including the
warnings that were given of an attack on Pan Am and why those weren't heeded.
Secondly, the case should go back to the court of appeal. The case is still
open and the police are going to Libya.
Q. If Megrahi is innocent, how did he
get caught up in the biggest murder trial in history?
A. That's a very good question. You
enter into the realms of speculation. It looks like it was a frame up, to put
the blame on Libya. Not by the police. The police reasonably honestly followed
the leads that were put their way.
Q. How did he feel in Tripoli airport
when the Saltire was flown by Libyans – knowing as he must that this would
injure the government which freed him?
A. It was presented as a Government-orchestrated
carnival. But if you read Wikileaks, a confidential cable from the US embassy
undermined the US and UK government's claim that Megrahi's reception when he
returned home was a grossly orchestrated pageant. It acknowledged that the
crowd assembled at the airport numbered only around 100 and that only one
Libyan TV channel broadcast the event.
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Court finds Obeidi and Zway not guilty; Attorney General to appeal
[This is the headline over a report published late yesterday on the website of the Libya Herald. It reads as follows:]
Qaddafi regime Foreign Minister Abdulati Al-Obeidi and Mohamed Al-Zway, the former secretary of the General People’s Congress, were found not guilty by a Tripoli court today. However, the Attorney General says he is appealing against the decisions and has ordered the two men to be returned to prison pending the appeal.
The verdict is seen as important because it shows the impartiality and independence of the Libya courts at a time when many voices outside the country claim that a fair trial is impossible in Libya, in particular in the case of Saif Al-Islam and Abdullah Senussi. The impossibility of a fair trial is one of the main planks of the International Criminal Court’s demand that Libya hand over both men to it.
Obeidi and Zway were first arrested in July 2011. Obeidi had served as Prime Minister from 1977 to 1979, then as nominal head of state from 1979 to 1981 and finally as Qaddafi’s last Foreign Minister after Musa Kusa fled in March 2011.
Zway, a close friend of Qaddafi from schooldays in Sebha, was Libya’s ambassador to the UK. In 2010 was chosen by the dictator to be Secretary-General of his General People’s Congress.
Their trial opened on 10 September last year. They were accused of poor performance of their duties while in office and of maladministration, specifically wasting of public funds in respect of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The prosecution claimed that it was wrong to organise a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in return for having Libya removed from the list of the states sponsoring terrorism.
It also alleged that Obeidi and Zway had paid out double the amount originally planned – a charge at variance with claims by others linked to the compensation plan that the $2.7 billiion was itself never fully paid.
At the opening of the case, the judge said that the deal “was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made”.
Just before their trial, the former Justice Minister Mohamed Allagi who is president of Libya’s National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights, claimed that the trial and those of other Qaddafi officials were “invalid” because the law was not being properly implemented.
The charges against Zway and Obeidi surprised many observers at the time as they implied that the two should have been more effective in serving the Qaddafi regime and that the Lockerbie deal should never have happened.
Both men consistently denied the charges.
Today’s “Not Guilty” verdict was greeted with jubilation from the two men’s families. “We are satisfied that the verdict proves that Libyan justice is transparent and equal,” a nephew of Obeidi was quoted saying at the end of the proceedings.
[The Herald today contains a report (with a quote from me) on the acquittal.]
Qaddafi regime Foreign Minister Abdulati Al-Obeidi and Mohamed Al-Zway, the former secretary of the General People’s Congress, were found not guilty by a Tripoli court today. However, the Attorney General says he is appealing against the decisions and has ordered the two men to be returned to prison pending the appeal.
The verdict is seen as important because it shows the impartiality and independence of the Libya courts at a time when many voices outside the country claim that a fair trial is impossible in Libya, in particular in the case of Saif Al-Islam and Abdullah Senussi. The impossibility of a fair trial is one of the main planks of the International Criminal Court’s demand that Libya hand over both men to it.
Obeidi and Zway were first arrested in July 2011. Obeidi had served as Prime Minister from 1977 to 1979, then as nominal head of state from 1979 to 1981 and finally as Qaddafi’s last Foreign Minister after Musa Kusa fled in March 2011.
Zway, a close friend of Qaddafi from schooldays in Sebha, was Libya’s ambassador to the UK. In 2010 was chosen by the dictator to be Secretary-General of his General People’s Congress.
Their trial opened on 10 September last year. They were accused of poor performance of their duties while in office and of maladministration, specifically wasting of public funds in respect of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The prosecution claimed that it was wrong to organise a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in return for having Libya removed from the list of the states sponsoring terrorism.
It also alleged that Obeidi and Zway had paid out double the amount originally planned – a charge at variance with claims by others linked to the compensation plan that the $2.7 billiion was itself never fully paid.
At the opening of the case, the judge said that the deal “was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made”.
Just before their trial, the former Justice Minister Mohamed Allagi who is president of Libya’s National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights, claimed that the trial and those of other Qaddafi officials were “invalid” because the law was not being properly implemented.
The charges against Zway and Obeidi surprised many observers at the time as they implied that the two should have been more effective in serving the Qaddafi regime and that the Lockerbie deal should never have happened.
Both men consistently denied the charges.
Today’s “Not Guilty” verdict was greeted with jubilation from the two men’s families. “We are satisfied that the verdict proves that Libyan justice is transparent and equal,” a nephew of Obeidi was quoted saying at the end of the proceedings.
[The Herald today contains a report (with a quote from me) on the acquittal.]
Monday, 17 June 2013
Lockerbie compensation: Libyan officials acquitted
[This is the headline over a report just published on the BBC News website. In its original form (it has now been slightly expanded), it read as follows:]
Two senior Libyan officials have been acquitted of "squandering public funds" by agreeing to pay $2.7bn (£1.7bn) in compensation to victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Former Foreign Minister Abdelaaty al-Obeidi [a long-serving member of the Libyan Lockerbie committee] and former General People's Congress head Mohamed al-Zway [a long time ambassador in London] have been on trial since September 2012.
Col Muammar Gaddafi agreed to pay the compensation in 2003.
These are the first verdicts against his officials since he was ousted.
[I am delighted to hear of these acquittals. Between 1993 and 2010 I had numerous dealings with Messrs Obeidi and Zwai over the Lockerbie case. I found both of them to be straightforward, honest and trustworthy. They were two of the good guys of the Gaddafi regime, in my view. The saga of their arrest and trial after the collapse of the old regime can be followed here.
I am saddened to discover the following addition to the BBC’s report made at 16.08:]
State prosecutor Sidiq al-Sour later told journalists that the pair would face separate charges over the "systematic repressive policies practised" by Col Gaddafi's government during the 2011 uprising which toppled him.
He said they would face charges such as forming armed criminal groups, inciting rape and illegally detaining individuals.
[An Agence France Presse news agency report on the Star Africa website contains the following:]
A Libyan court acquitted two former aides of slain dictator Moamer Kadhafi on Monday of charges connected to the deadly 1988 bombing of a US airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
“On behalf of all people, the court decides to acquit Abdelati al-Obeidi and Mohamed Belgassem al-Zwai of all charges against them,” the judge said to shouts of “Long live justice!” from the defendants’ families. (...)
It was unclear if Obeidi, a former foreign minister, and Zwai, ex-parliament speaker, would be released following their acquittal or if there were other charges outstanding.
“We are satisfied that the verdict proves that Libyan justice is transparent and equal,” said Sami, a nephew of Obeidi, as he left the courtroom.
The two men were accused of mismanaging public funds in compensating families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
The prosecution had charged that Obeidi and Zwai were responsible for negotiating settlements with the Lockerbie families and had paid out double the amount originally planned.
[Further clarification can be found in this report from the news agency Reuters and in this report on the Middle East Online website.
I can find no recent information on the criminal proceedings against Abuzed Omar Dorda, another Gaddafi-era official heavily involved in seeking a resolution of the Lockerbie affair.]
Two senior Libyan officials have been acquitted of "squandering public funds" by agreeing to pay $2.7bn (£1.7bn) in compensation to victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Former Foreign Minister Abdelaaty al-Obeidi [a long-serving member of the Libyan Lockerbie committee] and former General People's Congress head Mohamed al-Zway [a long time ambassador in London] have been on trial since September 2012.
Col Muammar Gaddafi agreed to pay the compensation in 2003.
These are the first verdicts against his officials since he was ousted.
[I am delighted to hear of these acquittals. Between 1993 and 2010 I had numerous dealings with Messrs Obeidi and Zwai over the Lockerbie case. I found both of them to be straightforward, honest and trustworthy. They were two of the good guys of the Gaddafi regime, in my view. The saga of their arrest and trial after the collapse of the old regime can be followed here.
I am saddened to discover the following addition to the BBC’s report made at 16.08:]
State prosecutor Sidiq al-Sour later told journalists that the pair would face separate charges over the "systematic repressive policies practised" by Col Gaddafi's government during the 2011 uprising which toppled him.
He said they would face charges such as forming armed criminal groups, inciting rape and illegally detaining individuals.
[An Agence France Presse news agency report on the Star Africa website contains the following:]
A Libyan court acquitted two former aides of slain dictator Moamer Kadhafi on Monday of charges connected to the deadly 1988 bombing of a US airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
“On behalf of all people, the court decides to acquit Abdelati al-Obeidi and Mohamed Belgassem al-Zwai of all charges against them,” the judge said to shouts of “Long live justice!” from the defendants’ families. (...)
It was unclear if Obeidi, a former foreign minister, and Zwai, ex-parliament speaker, would be released following their acquittal or if there were other charges outstanding.
“We are satisfied that the verdict proves that Libyan justice is transparent and equal,” said Sami, a nephew of Obeidi, as he left the courtroom.
The two men were accused of mismanaging public funds in compensating families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
The prosecution had charged that Obeidi and Zwai were responsible for negotiating settlements with the Lockerbie families and had paid out double the amount originally planned.
[Further clarification can be found in this report from the news agency Reuters and in this report on the Middle East Online website.
I can find no recent information on the criminal proceedings against Abuzed Omar Dorda, another Gaddafi-era official heavily involved in seeking a resolution of the Lockerbie affair.]
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Libya: Gaddafi official Abdelati Obeidi 'leaves Libya'
[This is the headline over a report published this afternoon on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
An official from Muammar Gaddafi's embattled government has left Libya and is said to have flown to Athens.
There was no immediate official comment on the departure of Abdelati Obeidi, a deputy foreign minister, whose car was seen crossing into Tunisia.
A security source at Tunisia's Djerba airport told Reuters that Mr Obeidi had flown to the Greek capital.
A Greek government source said the official had come to deliver a message from Colonel Gaddafi, Reuters said. (...)
Mr Obeidi accompanied the minister [Moussa Koussa] to Djerba but returned to Libya on that occasion while Mr Koussa flew on to London, AFP news agency reports.
At the foreign ministry, Mr Obeidi is responsible for European affairs.
[Abdel Ati al-Obeidi has been the chairman of the Libyan government's "Lockerbie Committee" since at least 1993. He has held over the years various posts in the Libyan regime, including Head of State; Prime Minister; Foreign Minister; Ambassador to various countries, including Italy; and Colonel Gaddafi's chef de cabinet. It would surprise me somewhat if his absence from Libya were other than temporary.]
An official from Muammar Gaddafi's embattled government has left Libya and is said to have flown to Athens.
There was no immediate official comment on the departure of Abdelati Obeidi, a deputy foreign minister, whose car was seen crossing into Tunisia.
A security source at Tunisia's Djerba airport told Reuters that Mr Obeidi had flown to the Greek capital.
A Greek government source said the official had come to deliver a message from Colonel Gaddafi, Reuters said. (...)
Mr Obeidi accompanied the minister [Moussa Koussa] to Djerba but returned to Libya on that occasion while Mr Koussa flew on to London, AFP news agency reports.
At the foreign ministry, Mr Obeidi is responsible for European affairs.
[Abdel Ati al-Obeidi has been the chairman of the Libyan government's "Lockerbie Committee" since at least 1993. He has held over the years various posts in the Libyan regime, including Head of State; Prime Minister; Foreign Minister; Ambassador to various countries, including Italy; and Colonel Gaddafi's chef de cabinet. It would surprise me somewhat if his absence from Libya were other than temporary.]
Thursday, 20 July 2017
“Libya has always viewed him as a political hostage”
[What follows is excerpted from a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2010:]
Libya's relations with Britain have been flourishing across the board since the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, one of Muammar Gaddafi's senior ministers said today.
Libya was "delighted" at Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's return home from a Scottish prison last August and still insists he is innocent of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103, said Abdel-Fatah Yunis al-Obeidi, the Libyan secretary general for public security.
Obeidi, whose rank is that of a cabinet minister, hinted that David Cameron's comment that Megrahi's release had been a "mistake" — fuelling the domestic and international row about the circumstances of the decision — was made under US pressure. In an exclusive interview on a visit to London, Obeidi said he was certain the former intelligence agent was innocent.
"Libya is delighted by his return and has always viewed him as a political hostage and never acknowledged him as a prisoner," he said. "Libya had no connection with the Lockerbie affair. The international community was led to believe that Libya was behind the incident but history will prove the truth. I am convinced that Megrahi was innocent and was a victim of a huge international conspiracy."
Libya agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to families of the victims because of demands from the UN, not because it admitted guilt over the worst act of terrorism in British history. It portrays Megrahi's release as a purely humanitarian issue involving a man suffering from terminal prostate cancer who supposedly had just weeks left to live.
"Megrahi is in the hands of God," said Obeidi. "He was in a Scottish prison. Those who made the three-month prognosis were British doctors. The fact that he is still alive is divine will and has nothing to do with Libya. If you have a direct line to Heaven you can check up there."
Renewed US interest in the affair is linked to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and anger among families of the 189 US victims of the Pan Am bombing.
"The British government should disregard the views of others," Obeidi said. "We and you know who those others are. They are those who do not want Britain to look after its own economic interests and wants it to be subjugated to them for ever."
Obeidi's busy UK schedule underlines the warmth and intensity of bilateral relations since Tony Blair met Gaddafi in 2004. (...)
"Relations are excellent and getting better every day," he said. "The problem before was the absence of trust. Now we have restored confidence and there is much greater cooperation."
Libyan officials do not normally relish discussing Lockerbie, wishing to draw a line under it after the payment of compensation, the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US and UK and a wider sense that the country has shed its pariah status as western companies, backed by their governments, queue up to do business. But Libya lobbied hard for Megrahi's release — finding a willing partner in the Labour government — and the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity was escorted home personally by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's son and presumed heir. During a recent lecture in London the younger Gaddafi responded monosyllabically to a question about Megrahi, focusing instead on the "new" Libya and opportunities it presented.
Libya does not expect any adverse effect on its booming relations with the UK. "The Libyans won't really care," predicted Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli. "It's yesterday's problem. The worry now is Megrahi's state of health. There's no question of him being sent back to Scotland or of Libya having to pay any price. They will see it as Cameron being in the pocket of the Americans."
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Kenny MacAskill to make statement on claims he advised Megrahi to drop appeal
[This is the
headline over a report published this evening on the STV News website. It reads
in part:]
Kenny MacAskill
is to make a statement to Holyrood in the wake of claims he advised the
Lockerbie bomber to drop his appeal to smooth the way for his release.
The allegations, strongly denied by the
Scottish Government, are contained in a new book about the bomber which was
published on Monday.
In the wake of the allegations, the
Justice Secretary, who controversially freed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in August
2009 on compassionate grounds, faced calls from opposition politicians to make
a statement to Holyrood.
He will now do that, and answer
questions from MSPs on the matter, on Wednesday afternoon.
On Monday, a spokesman for the Scottish
Government categorically denied that it "had any involvement of any kind
in Mr Al-Megrahi dropping his appeal".
The spokesman insisted that had been
"entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal team".
He also branded the book Megrahi: You Are My Jury, by writer,
researcher and TV producer John Ashton, as being "third-hand
hearsay".
Mr MacAskill decided to free the Libyan
- the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December
1988 which killed 270 people - on compassionate grounds. (…)
Mr Ashton's book claims Mr MacAskill
met a delegation of Libyan officials ten days before announcing his decision,
including foreign minister Abdulati al-Obedi.
In the book, Megrahi said: "Obedi
said that towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him
in private. Once the others had withdrawn, he stated that MacAskill gave him to
understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped
my appeal."
Mr Ashton, who studied the Lockerbie
case for 18 years and spent three years as a researcher with the bomber's legal
team, said yesterday: "Mr Megrahi makes clear in the book that it was made
clear to him by the Libyan official who met with Mr MacAskill that it would
help his case for compassionate release if he dropped his appeal."
The author added that Megrahi
"felt very strongly that dropping the appeal would help his application
for compassionate release".
Labour, the Tories and the Liberal
Democrats all called on Mr MacAskill to make a statement to the Scottish
Parliament in the wake of the book's allegations.
However the spokesman for the Scottish
Government said on Monday the claims in the book were "wrong".
They added: "Officials were
present at all meetings the Justice Secretary had on this matter at all
times."
[A shorter report can be read here on
the BBC News website.
Abdelbaset Megrahi does not claim in the book that Kenny MacAskill directly advised or pressurised him to drop his appeal. The advice is said to have been conveyed through Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, then the Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister with special responsibility for European relations. Of all the Libyan officials with whom I had dealings over the years, Obeidi was the most trustworthy and transparent. However, he was very keen indeed to secure the repatriation of Megrahi in time for the fortieth anniversary of the Gaddafi revolution. My suspicion (for which I have no evidence whatsoever) is that Obeidi may have misunderstood something that MacAskill said to him or have interpreted something neutral through the prism of his desire to achieve Megrahi's return to Libya. I also know that Obeidi still had a lingering feeling that repatriation would ultimately be achieved through prisoner transfer, which he was under the impression (not unjustifiably) had been agreed to by Tony Blair in the "deal in the desert". For prisoner transfer, of course, abandonment of the appeal was essential. I had on several occasions informed Obeidi that Tony Blair was not in a position to secure transfer of a prisoner in a Scottish prison; but I was never wholly confident that he actually got the message. "But Tony told us!" was a frequent refrain.]
Abdelbaset Megrahi does not claim in the book that Kenny MacAskill directly advised or pressurised him to drop his appeal. The advice is said to have been conveyed through Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, then the Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister with special responsibility for European relations. Of all the Libyan officials with whom I had dealings over the years, Obeidi was the most trustworthy and transparent. However, he was very keen indeed to secure the repatriation of Megrahi in time for the fortieth anniversary of the Gaddafi revolution. My suspicion (for which I have no evidence whatsoever) is that Obeidi may have misunderstood something that MacAskill said to him or have interpreted something neutral through the prism of his desire to achieve Megrahi's return to Libya. I also know that Obeidi still had a lingering feeling that repatriation would ultimately be achieved through prisoner transfer, which he was under the impression (not unjustifiably) had been agreed to by Tony Blair in the "deal in the desert". For prisoner transfer, of course, abandonment of the appeal was essential. I had on several occasions informed Obeidi that Tony Blair was not in a position to secure transfer of a prisoner in a Scottish prison; but I was never wholly confident that he actually got the message. "But Tony told us!" was a frequent refrain.]
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Lockerbie bomber's release has strengthened ties with UK, says Libya
[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]
Libya's relations with Britain have been flourishing across the board since the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, one of Muammar Gaddafi's senior ministers said today.
Libya was "delighted" at Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's return home from a Scottish prison last August and still insists he is innocent of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103, said Abdel-Fatah Yunis al-Obeidi, the Libyan secretary general for public security. [Note by RB: The person being referred to is not Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who led the Libyan team that had several meetings with Scottish (and UK) government officials in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation.]
Obeidi, whose rank is that of a cabinet minister, hinted that David Cameron's comment that Megrahi's release had been a "mistake" — fuelling the domestic and international row about the circumstances of the decision — was made under US pressure. In an exclusive interview on a visit to London, Obeidi said he was certain the former intelligence agent was innocent.
"Libya is delighted by his return and has always viewed him as a political hostage and never acknowledged him as a prisoner," he said. "Libya had no connection with the Lockerbie affair. The international community was led to believe that Libya was behind the incident but history will prove the truth. I am convinced that Megrahi was innocent and was a victim of a huge international conspiracy."
Libya agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to families of the victims because of demands from the UN, not because it admitted guilt over the worst act of terrorism in British history. It portrays Megrahi's release as a purely humanitarian issue involving a man suffering from terminal prostate cancer who supposedly had just weeks left to live.
"Megrahi is in the hands of God," said Obeidi. "He was in a Scottish prison. Those who made the three-month prognosis were British doctors. The fact that he is still alive is divine will and has nothing to do with Libya. If you have a direct line to Heaven you can check up there." (...)
"Relations are excellent and getting better every day," he said. "The problem before was the absence of trust. Now we have restored confidence and there is much greater cooperation."
Libyan officials do not normally relish discussing Lockerbie, wishing to draw a line under it after the payment of compensation, the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US and UK and a wider sense that the country has shed its pariah status as western companies, backed by their governments, queue up to do business. But Libya lobbied hard for Megrahi's release — finding a willing partner in the Labour government — and the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity was escorted home personally by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's son and presumed heir. During a recent lecture in London the younger Gaddafi responded monosyllabically to a question about Megrahi, focusing instead on the "new" Libya and opportunities it presented.
Libya does not expect any adverse effect on its booming relations with the UK. "The Libyans won't really care," predicted Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli "It's yesterday's problem. The worry now is Megrahi's state of health. There's no question of him being sent back to Scotland or of Libya having to pay any price. They will see it as Cameron being in the pocket of the Americans."
Libya's relations with Britain have been flourishing across the board since the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, one of Muammar Gaddafi's senior ministers said today.
Libya was "delighted" at Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's return home from a Scottish prison last August and still insists he is innocent of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103, said Abdel-Fatah Yunis al-Obeidi, the Libyan secretary general for public security. [Note by RB: The person being referred to is not Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who led the Libyan team that had several meetings with Scottish (and UK) government officials in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation.]
Obeidi, whose rank is that of a cabinet minister, hinted that David Cameron's comment that Megrahi's release had been a "mistake" — fuelling the domestic and international row about the circumstances of the decision — was made under US pressure. In an exclusive interview on a visit to London, Obeidi said he was certain the former intelligence agent was innocent.
"Libya is delighted by his return and has always viewed him as a political hostage and never acknowledged him as a prisoner," he said. "Libya had no connection with the Lockerbie affair. The international community was led to believe that Libya was behind the incident but history will prove the truth. I am convinced that Megrahi was innocent and was a victim of a huge international conspiracy."
Libya agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to families of the victims because of demands from the UN, not because it admitted guilt over the worst act of terrorism in British history. It portrays Megrahi's release as a purely humanitarian issue involving a man suffering from terminal prostate cancer who supposedly had just weeks left to live.
"Megrahi is in the hands of God," said Obeidi. "He was in a Scottish prison. Those who made the three-month prognosis were British doctors. The fact that he is still alive is divine will and has nothing to do with Libya. If you have a direct line to Heaven you can check up there." (...)
"Relations are excellent and getting better every day," he said. "The problem before was the absence of trust. Now we have restored confidence and there is much greater cooperation."
Libyan officials do not normally relish discussing Lockerbie, wishing to draw a line under it after the payment of compensation, the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US and UK and a wider sense that the country has shed its pariah status as western companies, backed by their governments, queue up to do business. But Libya lobbied hard for Megrahi's release — finding a willing partner in the Labour government — and the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity was escorted home personally by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's son and presumed heir. During a recent lecture in London the younger Gaddafi responded monosyllabically to a question about Megrahi, focusing instead on the "new" Libya and opportunities it presented.
Libya does not expect any adverse effect on its booming relations with the UK. "The Libyans won't really care," predicted Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli "It's yesterday's problem. The worry now is Megrahi's state of health. There's no question of him being sent back to Scotland or of Libya having to pay any price. They will see it as Cameron being in the pocket of the Americans."
Saturday, 16 September 2023
Death announced of Abdul Ati al-Obeidi
I am deeply saddened to learn of the death at the age of 83 of Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who held many offices in Libya during the Gaddafi era, including Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. From the time in November 1991 that the UK and the US brought charges against Libyan citizens in respect of the Lockerbie bombing, until the eventual compassionate release and repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi in August 2009, Obeidi was intimately involved in the Lockerbie case as chairman of the Libyan Government's Lockerbie committee.
Over the years leading up to the voluntary surrender of Megrahi and Fhimah for trial in the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, and in the years following Megrahi's conviction, I had numerous meetings with Obeidi and invariably found him honest, trustworthy and transparent in all his dealings. He was always part of the solution, not part of the problem. I wish I could say the same about the British and American officials that I came in contact with over that period. But it would not be true.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi has featured in many items posted on this blog. They can be accessed here.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Moussa Koussa and the Scottish police and prosecutors
[The following is from a report in The Independent today:]
Libya's acting foreign minister flew into Athens last night on a mission from Muammar Gaddafi which his Greek government hosts said meant the regime was now seeking an end to the fighting.
Disilllusioned with what he sees as the betrayal by France, Britian and Italy because of the NATO-led military intervention, the Libyan leader may see Greece—with which he has long enjoyed good relations—as a possible diplomatic conduit to the West.
After Abdelati Obeidi met Prime Minister George Papandreou, Mr Obeidi's Greek counterpart, Dimitri Droutsas, said last night: "It seems that the Libyan authorities are seeking a solution." Though there were few details of what, if anything, the regime is proposing, Mr Papandreou has been in touch with Western governments over the past few days. Mr Obeidi is expected to travel on to Malta and Turkey. [RB: An article on the Aljazeera website on the Obeidi mission can be read here.]
Meanwhile, Scottish officials have arrived in London to question Libya's former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, on what he knows about the Lockerbie bombing. The interview, which may take place today, comes as MPs and families of victims of the attack demand that Mr Koussa should not be granted immunity from prosecution, even if there have been attempts to encourage others in the Gaddafi regime to defect.
Despite reports that Mr Koussa is named in court documents as overseeing Libya's supply of Semtex explosive to the Provisional IRA, British officials will seek to delay any legal moves against him, arguing that the priority is to oust Colonel Gaddafi.
[The other UK media that I have been able to access online go no further than to state that Scottish officials will today discuss with UK Foreign Office officials the possibility of interviewing Moussa Koussa. There is no suggestion that any such interview will take place today or, indeed, any time soon. For example, the report on the BBC News website can be read here; that on the Sky News website can be read here; that in The Scotsman (which is misleadingly headlined) can be read here; and the Press Association news agency report here.
However, the report in the Daily Record contains the following:]
A young Scottish prosecutor is leading efforts to question the high-profile Libyan defector Musa Kusa over the Lockerbie bombing.
Lindsey Miller, head of the Crown Office Serious and Organised Crime Division, has been liaising with families of the Lockerbie victims and wrote to them promising to pursue Gaddafi's former spy chief.
Lawyers and police could start interviewing Kusa today.
Miller, 39, is the senior procurator fiscal heading the investigation into the terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 that killed 270 people.
In an email sent to relatives of the victims after Kusa arrived in Britain, Miller said her staff had notified the Foreign Office that "we wish to interview [Kusa] regarding any information he may have concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 103."
She added that the bomb probe "remains open and we will pursue all relevant lines of inquiry in conjunction with our US counterparts". [RB: Regrettably, the Scottish police and prosecutors have a very narrow concept of what is "relevant" -- only material that supports the Malta-Frankfurt-Heathrow scenario.]
Representatives of the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary are to meet Foreign Office officials today to discuss access to the Libyan foreign minister.
Last night, Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill said: "They'll be seeking to interview him tomorrow.
"It's not for me to interfere with due process here. I have to stand back and leave that to the relevant authorities, but they've been there waiting in London since Friday." (...)
Foreign Secretary William Hague yesterday gave the green light to the Crown Office after denying there would be an amnesty deal with Kusa if he helped topple Gaddafi.
Hague said: "It is a good thing, of course, where the Crown Office in Scotland wish to talk to him about what's happened in the past such as at Lockerbie.
"My officials are discussing with the Crown Office how to go about that. That's not a bad thing either - we want more information about past events."
Hague insisted there is no deal with Kusa. He said: "The Prime Minister and I have made clear there is no immunity from prosecution, there will be no immunity, he hasn't asked for that, there isn't a deal."
MacAskill added: "I welcome the commitment of the Foreign Secretary to allow them access and I hope that this provides further clarity on the Lockerbie atrocity."
Libya's acting foreign minister flew into Athens last night on a mission from Muammar Gaddafi which his Greek government hosts said meant the regime was now seeking an end to the fighting.
Disilllusioned with what he sees as the betrayal by France, Britian and Italy because of the NATO-led military intervention, the Libyan leader may see Greece—with which he has long enjoyed good relations—as a possible diplomatic conduit to the West.
After Abdelati Obeidi met Prime Minister George Papandreou, Mr Obeidi's Greek counterpart, Dimitri Droutsas, said last night: "It seems that the Libyan authorities are seeking a solution." Though there were few details of what, if anything, the regime is proposing, Mr Papandreou has been in touch with Western governments over the past few days. Mr Obeidi is expected to travel on to Malta and Turkey. [RB: An article on the Aljazeera website on the Obeidi mission can be read here.]
Meanwhile, Scottish officials have arrived in London to question Libya's former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, on what he knows about the Lockerbie bombing. The interview, which may take place today, comes as MPs and families of victims of the attack demand that Mr Koussa should not be granted immunity from prosecution, even if there have been attempts to encourage others in the Gaddafi regime to defect.
Despite reports that Mr Koussa is named in court documents as overseeing Libya's supply of Semtex explosive to the Provisional IRA, British officials will seek to delay any legal moves against him, arguing that the priority is to oust Colonel Gaddafi.
[The other UK media that I have been able to access online go no further than to state that Scottish officials will today discuss with UK Foreign Office officials the possibility of interviewing Moussa Koussa. There is no suggestion that any such interview will take place today or, indeed, any time soon. For example, the report on the BBC News website can be read here; that on the Sky News website can be read here; that in The Scotsman (which is misleadingly headlined) can be read here; and the Press Association news agency report here.
However, the report in the Daily Record contains the following:]
A young Scottish prosecutor is leading efforts to question the high-profile Libyan defector Musa Kusa over the Lockerbie bombing.
Lindsey Miller, head of the Crown Office Serious and Organised Crime Division, has been liaising with families of the Lockerbie victims and wrote to them promising to pursue Gaddafi's former spy chief.
Lawyers and police could start interviewing Kusa today.
Miller, 39, is the senior procurator fiscal heading the investigation into the terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 that killed 270 people.
In an email sent to relatives of the victims after Kusa arrived in Britain, Miller said her staff had notified the Foreign Office that "we wish to interview [Kusa] regarding any information he may have concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 103."
She added that the bomb probe "remains open and we will pursue all relevant lines of inquiry in conjunction with our US counterparts". [RB: Regrettably, the Scottish police and prosecutors have a very narrow concept of what is "relevant" -- only material that supports the Malta-Frankfurt-Heathrow scenario.]
Representatives of the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary are to meet Foreign Office officials today to discuss access to the Libyan foreign minister.
Last night, Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill said: "They'll be seeking to interview him tomorrow.
"It's not for me to interfere with due process here. I have to stand back and leave that to the relevant authorities, but they've been there waiting in London since Friday." (...)
Foreign Secretary William Hague yesterday gave the green light to the Crown Office after denying there would be an amnesty deal with Kusa if he helped topple Gaddafi.
Hague said: "It is a good thing, of course, where the Crown Office in Scotland wish to talk to him about what's happened in the past such as at Lockerbie.
"My officials are discussing with the Crown Office how to go about that. That's not a bad thing either - we want more information about past events."
Hague insisted there is no deal with Kusa. He said: "The Prime Minister and I have made clear there is no immunity from prosecution, there will be no immunity, he hasn't asked for that, there isn't a deal."
MacAskill added: "I welcome the commitment of the Foreign Secretary to allow them access and I hope that this provides further clarity on the Lockerbie atrocity."
Friday, 20 September 2013
Gaddafi-era Lockerbie officials go on trial in Tripoli
[The trial of thirty-seven Gaddafi-era officials on charges of murder, conspiracy to murder and human rights crimes during the revolution, opened yesterday in Tripoli. Most media reports have mentioned only one of the accused, Abdullah al-Senussi, Gaddafi’s intelligence chief and brother-in-law. However, the report in the Libya Herald refers to a number of other defendants:]
The Tripoli hearing was largely concerned with the formalities of establishing charges and identities. Along with Senussi who looked thin and gaunt, appearing to confirm his doctor’s claim that he has prostate cancer, the 36 accused appearing today included Qaddafi’s External Security Agency head Abu Zaid Omar Dorda, former Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the General People’s Conference head Mohamed al-Zway, former Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, and Tripoli Internal Security Agency head Mansour Dhou.
Unlike Senussi, Dorda, Obeidi and Zway have already made court appearances in Tripoli. Dorda’s case was adjourned on several occasions while Obeidi and Zway, who were arrested in July 2011, were found not guilty in June on charges of maladministration while in office and wasting public funds. (...)
At the end of two hours today, during which the defendants confirmed their names and the charges against them were read out, the pre-trial hearing was adjourned until 3 October. By then, the judge and his deputy ordered, defence lawyers must have reviewed their clients’ files and prepared their defences.
The proceedings were watched by a handful of foreign press reporters alongside local print and media journalists. Outside the court, there was a small protest by families of Busleem prison massacre victims, many with placards demanding that Senussi and others be hanged. Security was high both inside and outside the courtroom, with local shops being asked to close up.
[Messrs Dorda, Obeidi and Zway were all heavily involved in the resolution of the Lockerbie impasse. I had many meetings with all of them and always found them open, trustworthy and honest in their dealings with me.]
The Tripoli hearing was largely concerned with the formalities of establishing charges and identities. Along with Senussi who looked thin and gaunt, appearing to confirm his doctor’s claim that he has prostate cancer, the 36 accused appearing today included Qaddafi’s External Security Agency head Abu Zaid Omar Dorda, former Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the General People’s Conference head Mohamed al-Zway, former Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, and Tripoli Internal Security Agency head Mansour Dhou.
Unlike Senussi, Dorda, Obeidi and Zway have already made court appearances in Tripoli. Dorda’s case was adjourned on several occasions while Obeidi and Zway, who were arrested in July 2011, were found not guilty in June on charges of maladministration while in office and wasting public funds. (...)
At the end of two hours today, during which the defendants confirmed their names and the charges against them were read out, the pre-trial hearing was adjourned until 3 October. By then, the judge and his deputy ordered, defence lawyers must have reviewed their clients’ files and prepared their defences.
The proceedings were watched by a handful of foreign press reporters alongside local print and media journalists. Outside the court, there was a small protest by families of Busleem prison massacre victims, many with placards demanding that Senussi and others be hanged. Security was high both inside and outside the courtroom, with local shops being asked to close up.
[Messrs Dorda, Obeidi and Zway were all heavily involved in the resolution of the Lockerbie impasse. I had many meetings with all of them and always found them open, trustworthy and honest in their dealings with me.]
Sunday, 21 October 2012
PanAm cash duo tried for treason
[This is the headline over a report in today’s Scottish edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
However, it is now alleged that former Secretary General Mohammed al-Zwai and one time Foreign Minister Abdulati al-Obeidi should not have approved the compensation as the new administration insists Libya was not responsible.
Prosecutors also claim the two men should not have negotiated the deal in return for the lifting of the “unjust” sanctions and insist they should have been demanding compensation instead.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the bombing, said Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi were “two of the good people” under the then Libyan regime.
“I know both men and they would have inevitably been required to do what their boss told them, so they wouldn’t have had any choice,” he added. “I liked them both, they were two people we found it easy to talk to. Gaddafi wanted to get rid of the sanctions by paying the compensation.
“The accusers are still pursuing the intent of pinning as much blame as possible on the late Gaddafi’s regime. Any supposedly objective process of justice in Libya at the moment is very suspect.”
Frank Duggan, the President of the Victims of Pan Am 103 support group, added: “I don’t know why they want to resurrect the whole thing. And I don’t understand why they are saying the money shouldn’t have been paid out. The money was – as we say in the US – ‘chump change’, nothing to Gaddafi’s family.”
Gaddafi agreed to pay £6.25million to the families of each victim after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty of the attack, which saw Pan Am Flight 103 blow up over the town of Lockerbie killing 270 people.
Robert Black, Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, who has taken a keen interest in the case, described the recent revelations as “very odd”.
He said: “If this is what the current regime are charging these men with, it seems to indicate that they don’t believe that this money was in fact due.
“The view of the early new Libyan regime was that Gaddafi was responsible for everything, but now they seem to be saying, ‘Oh well, maybe not’.” (...)
Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi pleaded not guilty but were denied bail. Speaking after the hearing, their defence lawyer said: “We hope that the trial will be a fair one.”
Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing case, legal experts on both sides of the Atlantic say even if the payments were deemed illegal in Libyan law the cash could not be reclaimed.
American lawyer James Kreidles [RB: presumably this should read “James Kreindler”] dismissed the court proceedings as having “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the victims’ families.
He added: “It was an appropriate settlement. It was good for the families, good for the US and good for Libya.” [RB: it was also good for Kreindler & Kreindler whose contingency fees for representing the families amounted to many, many millions of dollars.]
The new Libyan regime has challenged Colonel Gaddafi’s decision to compensate the families of the Lockerbie bombing, claiming the £1.7billion was paid illegally.
Two officials who worked under the former leader have appeared in court accused of squandering public money and treason for their part in the deal.
The Libyans agreed to pay the reparations and accept responsibility for the 1988 attack in exchange for the lifting of United Nation sanctions. [RB: The full text of the Libyan regime’s “acceptance of responsibility” can be read in this letter.]
However, it is now alleged that former Secretary General Mohammed al-Zwai and one time Foreign Minister Abdulati al-Obeidi should not have approved the compensation as the new administration insists Libya was not responsible.
Prosecutors also claim the two men should not have negotiated the deal in return for the lifting of the “unjust” sanctions and insist they should have been demanding compensation instead.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the bombing, said Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi were “two of the good people” under the then Libyan regime.
“I know both men and they would have inevitably been required to do what their boss told them, so they wouldn’t have had any choice,” he added. “I liked them both, they were two people we found it easy to talk to. Gaddafi wanted to get rid of the sanctions by paying the compensation.
“The accusers are still pursuing the intent of pinning as much blame as possible on the late Gaddafi’s regime. Any supposedly objective process of justice in Libya at the moment is very suspect.”
Frank Duggan, the President of the Victims of Pan Am 103 support group, added: “I don’t know why they want to resurrect the whole thing. And I don’t understand why they are saying the money shouldn’t have been paid out. The money was – as we say in the US – ‘chump change’, nothing to Gaddafi’s family.”
Gaddafi agreed to pay £6.25million to the families of each victim after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty of the attack, which saw Pan Am Flight 103 blow up over the town of Lockerbie killing 270 people.
Robert Black, Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, who has taken a keen interest in the case, described the recent revelations as “very odd”.
He said: “If this is what the current regime are charging these men with, it seems to indicate that they don’t believe that this money was in fact due.
“The view of the early new Libyan regime was that Gaddafi was responsible for everything, but now they seem to be saying, ‘Oh well, maybe not’.” (...)
Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi pleaded not guilty but were denied bail. Speaking after the hearing, their defence lawyer said: “We hope that the trial will be a fair one.”
Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing case, legal experts on both sides of the Atlantic say even if the payments were deemed illegal in Libyan law the cash could not be reclaimed.
American lawyer James Kreidles [RB: presumably this should read “James Kreindler”] dismissed the court proceedings as having “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the victims’ families.
He added: “It was an appropriate settlement. It was good for the families, good for the US and good for Libya.” [RB: it was also good for Kreindler & Kreindler whose contingency fees for representing the families amounted to many, many millions of dollars.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)