[The following come from an article in this morning's edition of the Annandale Herald, Lockerbie's local weekly newspaper. It was published before Kenny MacAskill's decision was announced.]
Retired Scottish law professor Robert Black, who grew up in Lockerbie and was one of the architects of the original trial in the Netherlands, said he was sad Megrahi would “die a convicted man”.
Convinced Megrahi was wrongly convicted, he told the Herald and News: “If it is the case that Abdelbaset Megrahi is soon to be returned to Libya to die surrounded by his extended family, I will be delighted on simple humanitarian grounds. But I am sad he felt it necessary, for whatever reason, to abandon his appeal.
“However, I fully appreciate the state of his health is now so precarious that he is prepared to do anything, however unpalatable, that he thinks will improve his chances of repatriation within the shortest possible time scale.”
Professor Black said the time taken for the system to deal with Megrahi’s case was “a disgrace” and he now hoped for some sort of independent inquiry, whether Scottish, UK, European Union or United Nations, into “the whole sorry Lockerbie affair”.
He said: “There are those of us who will fight as hard as we can to secure that it happens.”
Retired teacher and trustee of Dryfesdale Lodge visitor centre John Gair said: “I was very sorry that he dropped his last appeal. There may be much more to be found out about it. There is still an element of doubt about this. I don’t know if we will ever know the real truth but it would have been nice to feel we really knew the truth about what happened.”
A Rosebank resident at the time of the disaster and member of the community liaison group, Maxwell Kerr said he could see both sides on the argument about Megrahi’s possible release: “I have spoken to people who said he should serve his time, that because he has been judged and punished in Scotland he should serve his sentence here. But there are others like Jim Swire and Robert Black who believe he is innocent. It is a difficult thing to answer and now we will have to wait and see what the justice minister says.”
Thursday, 20 August 2009
The decision
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has granted compassionate release. The separate prisoner transfer request by the Libyan Government has been refused because of the legitimate expectations held by the US Government and the US relatives, on the basis of undertakings allegedly given by the UK Government (but not admitted by that government) at the time of the initial agreement for the Zeist trial, that any sentence imposed on a person convicted would be served in Scotland.
Here is the full text of Mr MacAskill's statement:
STATEMENT BY KENNY MACASKILL, CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi
Introduction
Good afternoon. I will make a statement and then take questions.
It is my privilege to serve as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Government of Scotland. It is a post in which I take great pride, but one which carries with it great responsibility. Never, perhaps, more so than with these decisions that I now have to make.
On the evening of 21 December 1988 a heinous crime was perpetrated. It claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. Four days before Christmas, men, women and children going about their daily lives were cruelly murdered. They included 11 from one small Scottish town. That town was Lockerbie – a name that will forever be associated with the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on UK soil.
A prisoner transfer application has been submitted by the Government of Libya seeking the transfer of Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi. The man convicted of those offences in the Scottish courts. He has also now sought to be released on compassionate grounds due to his prostate cancer that is terminal.
This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland. I now find myself having to make these decisions. However, the applications have been lawfully made, and I am obliged to address them. Final advice from my officials was given late on Friday 14 August 2009. I have now had an opportunity to reflect upon this.
Let me be absolutely clear. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone.
In considering these applications I have strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and in the Scottish Prison Service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.
Let me be quite clear on matters on which I am certain. The Scottish police and prosecution service undertook a detailed and comprehensive investigation with the assistance of the US and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a world-wide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill. When Mr Al-Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our Judges who presided and acted justly.
Mr Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed. When such an appalling crime is perpetrated it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed.
Mr Al-Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision. My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed.
I realise that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who have served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry.
I now turn to the matters before me that I require to address. An application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and an application for compassionate release have been made. I now deal with them in turn.
Prisoner Transfer
Firstly, the prisoner transfer agreement.
The Libyan Government applied on 5 May 2009 for the transfer of Mr Al-Megrahi. Prisoner Transfer Agreements are negotiated by the United Kingdom Government.
Throughout the negotiations and at the time of the signing of the PTA with Libya, the Scottish Government’s opposition was made clear. It was pointed out that the Scottish Prison Service had only one Libyan prisoner in custody. Notwithstanding that, the UK Government failed to secure, as requested by the Scottish Government, an exclusion from the PTA for anyone involved in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. As a consequence Mr Al-Megrahi is eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.
I received numerous letters and representations, and recognised that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.
I met with the families of victims: those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight, as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie; a lady from Spain whose sister was a member of the cabin crew; and I held a video conference with families from the United States. I am grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.
I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. I met Minister Alobidi and his delegation from the Libyan Government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer, and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application.
I have noted and considered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations I received.
Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinised by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.
It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made, prior to trial, regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.
I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.
Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government’s application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject.
Compassionate Release
I now turn to the issue of compassionate release.
Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.
The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.
On 24 July 2009 I received an application from Mr Al-Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008. I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness, and indeed that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.
In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the Governor of Greenock Prison, the doctors and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I have consulted the Parole Board. This is the normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release and my decision is in accordance with all the advice given to me.
It is the opinion of his Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages, that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the firm consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” – that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis therefore has moved to the lower end of expectations.
Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner – he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States Government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.
It has been suggested that Mr Al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.
Conclusion
Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.
Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.
However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.
In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.
Mr Al Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.
But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.
For these reasons – and these reasons alone – it is my decision that Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.
Here is the full text of Mr MacAskill's statement:
STATEMENT BY KENNY MACASKILL, CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi
Introduction
Good afternoon. I will make a statement and then take questions.
It is my privilege to serve as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Government of Scotland. It is a post in which I take great pride, but one which carries with it great responsibility. Never, perhaps, more so than with these decisions that I now have to make.
On the evening of 21 December 1988 a heinous crime was perpetrated. It claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. Four days before Christmas, men, women and children going about their daily lives were cruelly murdered. They included 11 from one small Scottish town. That town was Lockerbie – a name that will forever be associated with the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on UK soil.
A prisoner transfer application has been submitted by the Government of Libya seeking the transfer of Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi. The man convicted of those offences in the Scottish courts. He has also now sought to be released on compassionate grounds due to his prostate cancer that is terminal.
This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland. I now find myself having to make these decisions. However, the applications have been lawfully made, and I am obliged to address them. Final advice from my officials was given late on Friday 14 August 2009. I have now had an opportunity to reflect upon this.
Let me be absolutely clear. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone.
In considering these applications I have strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and in the Scottish Prison Service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.
Let me be quite clear on matters on which I am certain. The Scottish police and prosecution service undertook a detailed and comprehensive investigation with the assistance of the US and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a world-wide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill. When Mr Al-Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our Judges who presided and acted justly.
Mr Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed. When such an appalling crime is perpetrated it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed.
Mr Al-Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision. My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed.
I realise that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who have served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry.
I now turn to the matters before me that I require to address. An application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and an application for compassionate release have been made. I now deal with them in turn.
Prisoner Transfer
Firstly, the prisoner transfer agreement.
The Libyan Government applied on 5 May 2009 for the transfer of Mr Al-Megrahi. Prisoner Transfer Agreements are negotiated by the United Kingdom Government.
Throughout the negotiations and at the time of the signing of the PTA with Libya, the Scottish Government’s opposition was made clear. It was pointed out that the Scottish Prison Service had only one Libyan prisoner in custody. Notwithstanding that, the UK Government failed to secure, as requested by the Scottish Government, an exclusion from the PTA for anyone involved in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. As a consequence Mr Al-Megrahi is eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.
I received numerous letters and representations, and recognised that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.
I met with the families of victims: those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight, as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie; a lady from Spain whose sister was a member of the cabin crew; and I held a video conference with families from the United States. I am grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.
I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. I met Minister Alobidi and his delegation from the Libyan Government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer, and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application.
I have noted and considered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations I received.
Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinised by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.
It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made, prior to trial, regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.
I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.
Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government’s application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject.
Compassionate Release
I now turn to the issue of compassionate release.
Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.
The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.
On 24 July 2009 I received an application from Mr Al-Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008. I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness, and indeed that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.
In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the Governor of Greenock Prison, the doctors and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I have consulted the Parole Board. This is the normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release and my decision is in accordance with all the advice given to me.
It is the opinion of his Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages, that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the firm consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” – that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis therefore has moved to the lower end of expectations.
Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner – he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States Government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.
It has been suggested that Mr Al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.
Conclusion
Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.
Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.
However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.
In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.
Mr Al Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.
But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.
For these reasons – and these reasons alone – it is my decision that Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.
MacAskill to show mercy to Megrahi
[This is the headline over the principal Lockerbie report in today's edition of The Scotsman. The following are excerpts:]
Kenny MacAskill will today announce that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison and allowed to go home to Libya on compassionate grounds, The Scotsman understands.
The justice secretary has made his decision and will announce it to the world at a 1pm press conference.
Last night, preparations were under way for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi from Greenock jail – a decision that will infuriate American relatives of the Lockerbie victims and many United States politicians who are convinced the Libyan is guilty of the worst mass-murder in British legal history. (…)
There has been widespread speculation that Mr MacAskill would go down the route of granting the Libyan compassionate release.
Rumours that Megrahi was to be released intensified yesterday, after news that a police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a vehicle with blacked-out windows had been undertaken on Tuesday night between Greenock and Prestwick airport.
The convoy was sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow; it was thought to be a rehearsal in preparation for taking Megrahi to catch a flight to Libya.
Mr MacAskill's likely decision means Megrahi could be on his way home as early as today – in time for Ramadan, which begins tomorrow.
The release of Megrahi will delight campaigners who have long believed in the Libyan's innocence. Politicians including Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP, and Christine Grahame, the South of Scotland SNP MSP, have been long-term campaigners for his freedom.
Those who doubt his guilt say the evidence presented at his trial before three Scottish judges in the Netherlands was not strong enough to convict him.
His release will also please Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
[The same newspaper has an opinion piece by me entitled "Dropping of bomber appeal leaves a black mark on our legal system". Having been prepared hurriedly over the telephone last night, it is not the most polished piece of prose that I have ever produced. It reads as follows:]
The decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home through compassionate release is the correct one, not only because I believe him to be innocent, but simply on humane grounds, writes Robert Black.
He is seriously ill and only has a matter of months to live. It would be wrong to keep him in prison. The most unfortunate aspect of the events of the last few days has been the decision by Megrahi to drop his appeal. It potentially leaves a hanging chad over the Scottish judicial system, with many questions about what really happened left to be answered.
Taking this forward, it is clear that the UK government will not countenance any public inquiry into what happened.
They have made it clear – most recently in The Scotsman, that they will block any independent inquiry.
The Scottish Government has suggested that it does not have sufficient powers to hold a worthwhile inquiry into Lockerbie.
However, I disagree with it on this.
I think that there is scope for a review of how well the judicial system performed and to look at whether any lessons need to be learned.
That certainly is within the scope of the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.
It could look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
All of them are within the powers of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.
This would not satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal.
There are alternatives. There is a chance that the European Union may hold an inquiry. Malta still has the stain of being the place from which the bomb was flown out and it may wish to try to get the EU to start an inquiry.
One of the questions which would have been answered in an appeal is whether the bomb did fly out from Malta.
Then there is the United Nations.
Certainly, the UK and United States would use their Security Council vetoes to stop an inquiry being initiated there, but they have no veto over the UN's General Assembly.
By coincidence, the state that is just about to chair the General Assembly is Libya. So there is a possibility of a UN inquiry.
On other aspects of this case, I think if there was any criticism over how this has been handled in the last few weeks, it is not that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill spoke to people including Megrahi, but that he could have been more confidential about it.
In the end, though, I do not believe that it will damage Scotland's relations with the US.
Much of the reason behind the interventions by politicians such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is, I believe, posturing for domestic political purposes and little more.
I understand that assurances have been given that Megrahi's return will be low key and that should alleviate any problems.
Kenny MacAskill will today announce that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison and allowed to go home to Libya on compassionate grounds, The Scotsman understands.
The justice secretary has made his decision and will announce it to the world at a 1pm press conference.
Last night, preparations were under way for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi from Greenock jail – a decision that will infuriate American relatives of the Lockerbie victims and many United States politicians who are convinced the Libyan is guilty of the worst mass-murder in British legal history. (…)
There has been widespread speculation that Mr MacAskill would go down the route of granting the Libyan compassionate release.
Rumours that Megrahi was to be released intensified yesterday, after news that a police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a vehicle with blacked-out windows had been undertaken on Tuesday night between Greenock and Prestwick airport.
The convoy was sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow; it was thought to be a rehearsal in preparation for taking Megrahi to catch a flight to Libya.
Mr MacAskill's likely decision means Megrahi could be on his way home as early as today – in time for Ramadan, which begins tomorrow.
The release of Megrahi will delight campaigners who have long believed in the Libyan's innocence. Politicians including Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP, and Christine Grahame, the South of Scotland SNP MSP, have been long-term campaigners for his freedom.
Those who doubt his guilt say the evidence presented at his trial before three Scottish judges in the Netherlands was not strong enough to convict him.
His release will also please Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
[The same newspaper has an opinion piece by me entitled "Dropping of bomber appeal leaves a black mark on our legal system". Having been prepared hurriedly over the telephone last night, it is not the most polished piece of prose that I have ever produced. It reads as follows:]
The decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home through compassionate release is the correct one, not only because I believe him to be innocent, but simply on humane grounds, writes Robert Black.
He is seriously ill and only has a matter of months to live. It would be wrong to keep him in prison. The most unfortunate aspect of the events of the last few days has been the decision by Megrahi to drop his appeal. It potentially leaves a hanging chad over the Scottish judicial system, with many questions about what really happened left to be answered.
Taking this forward, it is clear that the UK government will not countenance any public inquiry into what happened.
They have made it clear – most recently in The Scotsman, that they will block any independent inquiry.
The Scottish Government has suggested that it does not have sufficient powers to hold a worthwhile inquiry into Lockerbie.
However, I disagree with it on this.
I think that there is scope for a review of how well the judicial system performed and to look at whether any lessons need to be learned.
That certainly is within the scope of the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.
It could look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
All of them are within the powers of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.
This would not satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal.
There are alternatives. There is a chance that the European Union may hold an inquiry. Malta still has the stain of being the place from which the bomb was flown out and it may wish to try to get the EU to start an inquiry.
One of the questions which would have been answered in an appeal is whether the bomb did fly out from Malta.
Then there is the United Nations.
Certainly, the UK and United States would use their Security Council vetoes to stop an inquiry being initiated there, but they have no veto over the UN's General Assembly.
By coincidence, the state that is just about to chair the General Assembly is Libya. So there is a possibility of a UN inquiry.
On other aspects of this case, I think if there was any criticism over how this has been handled in the last few weeks, it is not that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill spoke to people including Megrahi, but that he could have been more confidential about it.
In the end, though, I do not believe that it will damage Scotland's relations with the US.
Much of the reason behind the interventions by politicians such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is, I believe, posturing for domestic political purposes and little more.
I understand that assurances have been given that Megrahi's return will be low key and that should alleviate any problems.
Megrahi release today to prevent 'martyrdom'
[This is the headline over the main Lockerbie report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released today on compassionate grounds but Libya has given an undertaking that there will be no "triumphalism".
The Herald understands that one compelling reason for allowing the Libyan to return to Tripoli is to avoid him dying as a "martyr" in prison and putting Scotland on the map for all the wrong reasons.
The public announcement will be made at 1pm by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as The Herald stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan government.
The Foreign Office yesterday advised the State Department of the decision.
Despite concerns that Megrahi will be paraded through the streets to a hero's welcome, The Herald understands that Libyan delegates have told ministers that there would be no such triumphalism.
There is also a tacit agreement that the Libyan government will make no comment until after his return and that, even then, it will not use Megrahi as a big part of Colonel Gaddafi's September celebrations for 40 years in power.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi is expected to fly from Luton to collect Megrahi at lunchtime.
[The same newspaper has a further article by Lucy Adams headed "Scotland caught in the middle of an international drama" on the diplomatic manoeuvrings that got us where we are today; and a thoughtful and moving opinion piece by Anne Johnstone entitled "Ability to show compassion is a gift more precious to the giver".]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released today on compassionate grounds but Libya has given an undertaking that there will be no "triumphalism".
The Herald understands that one compelling reason for allowing the Libyan to return to Tripoli is to avoid him dying as a "martyr" in prison and putting Scotland on the map for all the wrong reasons.
The public announcement will be made at 1pm by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as The Herald stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan government.
The Foreign Office yesterday advised the State Department of the decision.
Despite concerns that Megrahi will be paraded through the streets to a hero's welcome, The Herald understands that Libyan delegates have told ministers that there would be no such triumphalism.
There is also a tacit agreement that the Libyan government will make no comment until after his return and that, even then, it will not use Megrahi as a big part of Colonel Gaddafi's September celebrations for 40 years in power.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi is expected to fly from Luton to collect Megrahi at lunchtime.
[The same newspaper has a further article by Lucy Adams headed "Scotland caught in the middle of an international drama" on the diplomatic manoeuvrings that got us where we are today; and a thoughtful and moving opinion piece by Anne Johnstone entitled "Ability to show compassion is a gift more precious to the giver".]
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Report: US notified Lockerbie bomber to be released
The US State Department has been told that a Libyan man serving a life sentence in Scotland for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people will be released, CNN reported Wednesday. CNN cited senior State Department officials as saying that Basset al-Megrahi, 57, would be released by Scottish authorities on compassionate grounds. Al-Megrahi has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer and was not expected to live through the end of the year.
[The above is the first paragraph of a report on the Earth Times website.]
[The above is the first paragraph of a report on the Earth Times website.]
Megrahi to be released within hours
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released on Thursday on compassionate grounds.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as the paper stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing which killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan Government.
A public announcement is expected at 1pm (BST) - 8am Eastern standard time - on Thursday from Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds. (...)
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan Minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi usually flies to the UK in a private jet.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We have a strong justice system in Scotland and people can be assured that the Justice Secretary's decisions have been reached on the basis of clear evidence and on no other factors."
[The above are excerpts from a report just posted on the heraldscotland website. I suspect that the author is The Herald's chief reporter, Lucy Adams.
The STV News website has a report that contains the following sentence:
"Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has been released from Greenock Prison on compassionate grounds, STV News sources have learned." [The sentence has since been altered to read "will be released".]
Under the headline "Police stage Megrahi departure rehearsal via Prestwick airport", Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has this afternoon posted an article containing the following sentences:
'A police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a mock target vehicle with blacked out windows was undertaken last night between Greenock and Prestwick airport. It is understood the exercise was carried out as a rehearsal to prepare for the flight of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi to Libya, understood to be taking place imminently.
'The convoy were sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow.']
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as the paper stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing which killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan Government.
A public announcement is expected at 1pm (BST) - 8am Eastern standard time - on Thursday from Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds. (...)
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan Minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi usually flies to the UK in a private jet.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We have a strong justice system in Scotland and people can be assured that the Justice Secretary's decisions have been reached on the basis of clear evidence and on no other factors."
[The above are excerpts from a report just posted on the heraldscotland website. I suspect that the author is The Herald's chief reporter, Lucy Adams.
The STV News website has a report that contains the following sentence:
"Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has been released from Greenock Prison on compassionate grounds, STV News sources have learned." [The sentence has since been altered to read "will be released".]
Under the headline "Police stage Megrahi departure rehearsal via Prestwick airport", Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has this afternoon posted an article containing the following sentences:
'A police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a mock target vehicle with blacked out windows was undertaken last night between Greenock and Prestwick airport. It is understood the exercise was carried out as a rehearsal to prepare for the flight of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi to Libya, understood to be taking place imminently.
'The convoy were sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow.']
Announcement of decision on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi
[What follows is the text of a "media calling notice" just issued by the Scottish Government.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has informed families and other interested parties that he has reached his decisions on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release in relation to Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, and will announce his decisions on Thursday August 20, 2009.
This fulfils the Justice Secretary's pledge to inform families on both sides of the Atlantic, in advance, of the timing of his public announcement.
The statement will take place at 1pm on Thursday (8am Eastern Standard Time).
Mr MacAskill's statement will be followed by an opportunity for questions and one-to-one broadcast interviews.
Media must notify the Scottish Government communications department in advance and advise of the names and outlets of those who will attend. These should be sent to communicationsjustice@scotland.gsi.gov.uk by 11:00 on Thursday, August 20, 2009. In addition media representatives must bring proof of identity to gain admission.
Details
Thursday, August 20, 2009
13:00 Mr MacAskill announces decisions in relation to the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release, and takes questions.
13:30 Broadcast interviews available
14:00 Mr MacAskill departs
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has informed families and other interested parties that he has reached his decisions on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release in relation to Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, and will announce his decisions on Thursday August 20, 2009.
This fulfils the Justice Secretary's pledge to inform families on both sides of the Atlantic, in advance, of the timing of his public announcement.
The statement will take place at 1pm on Thursday (8am Eastern Standard Time).
Mr MacAskill's statement will be followed by an opportunity for questions and one-to-one broadcast interviews.
Media must notify the Scottish Government communications department in advance and advise of the names and outlets of those who will attend. These should be sent to communicationsjustice@scotland.gsi.gov.uk by 11:00 on Thursday, August 20, 2009. In addition media representatives must bring proof of identity to gain admission.
Details
Thursday, August 20, 2009
13:00 Mr MacAskill announces decisions in relation to the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release, and takes questions.
13:30 Broadcast interviews available
14:00 Mr MacAskill departs
Don't forget Lockerbie
The families of those who died in the bombing of Pan Am 103 will continue searching for the truth. First, we need an inquiry
One of the first questions asked of me by every journalist and reporter covering the story about Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is: why is there such an apparent divide between the US and British relatives? Why do they believe he is guilty, and we remain to be convinced? Some imply that doubts about Megrahi's guilt by some UK representatives put the interests of a mass murderer before those of justice, a folly of the woolly liberal. This is far from the truth and I think the reasons for the differences in view are more complex.
Within days of the bombing, the then transport secretary, Paul Channon, stood in the House of Commons and obscured the truth about the number of credible warnings against US aviation. Our suspicions of a cover-up began and have remained to this day. Within three months, the UK families formed a support group, with the motto "The truth must be known". By then, the families knew that we would have a hard fight ahead to get to that truth.
The bombing of Pan Am 103 is often referred to as an American disaster. Yet it killed people from 21 countries, 47 of them British and Irish. I believe that the fact that it happened on our soil leaves the British relatives feeling a sense of responsibility for all the victims. The bomb was loaded on to the plane at a British airport and it was our government's responsibility first to protect travellers from such an attack, and second to understand how and why it was allowed to happen and ensure that lessons were learned for air travellers around the world. And finally, to seek and bring to justice those responsible for carrying out the attack.
UK families took this responsibility within the context of a country that has experienced terrorism first-hand for many years, and has also seen numerous miscarriages of justice where innocent people were convicted and jailed for terrorist crimes they did not commit. So it is no surprise that many British relatives have a scrupulous desire to ensure this does not happen again. If Pan Am 103 had taken off from JFK airport, we don't know what difference this would have made to the way the UK families have responded.
I am not arguing Megrahi's innocence and I feel that his decision to exercise his right to silence in the original trial did nothing to strengthen his defence. His co-accused was found innocent, a strong outcome in a Scottish court, where there is the option of a "not proven" verdict. I welcomed the decision of the Scottish criminal cases review commission to refer Megrahi's case back to the high court for appeal, an opportunity for us to hear any evidence that might get us nearer to the truth. The abandonment of the appeal is the worst possible outcome, as that evidence will now not be heard. But whatever his guilt or innocence, one thing everyone agrees on, including the court, is that he did not act alone.
I find it astounding that the UK government seems to have washed its hands of the whole affair and passed on responsibility to Scotland. Jack Straw's involvement includes stints as home secretary, foreign secretary and justice secretary, and in each of these posts he has had dealings with UK relatives. It was he who concluded the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiations with Libya, started by Tony Blair. Yet, when we contacted him about the impact this would have on the families, he said it was a Scottish government responsibility.
Why was Megrahi not excluded from the agreement? Now, the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has to decide whether to repatriate Megrahi or to release him on compassionate grounds. It is extraordinary when such a momentous decision is to be made by a man with no background in the case. I understand why US senators are putting pressure on MacAskill not to release Megrahi, but wish they would also put pressure on the UK government to hold an independent inquiry that might establish some of the answers to the bigger questions: who ordered the bombing? What was the motivation for it? Why was it not prevented? These answers must be sought whatever Megrahi's guilt or innocence.
The primary reason given by Straw and others in government through the years is that such an inquiry might prejudice the criminal process. Now, that argument has no validity. Westminster must not wash its hands of Lockerbie. One step the UK government could take is to follow the example of the Hillsborough case, by releasing all official papers (now, more than 20 years after the bombing).
We will resolutely continue our search for the truth. If the UK government fails to hold an inquiry, we will lobby the Scottish government do so and ensure that all responsible British government ministers and officials are called to account.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece by Pamela Dix, a relative of one of the British victims of the Lockerbie disaster, on The Guardian's Comment is free website.]
One of the first questions asked of me by every journalist and reporter covering the story about Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is: why is there such an apparent divide between the US and British relatives? Why do they believe he is guilty, and we remain to be convinced? Some imply that doubts about Megrahi's guilt by some UK representatives put the interests of a mass murderer before those of justice, a folly of the woolly liberal. This is far from the truth and I think the reasons for the differences in view are more complex.
Within days of the bombing, the then transport secretary, Paul Channon, stood in the House of Commons and obscured the truth about the number of credible warnings against US aviation. Our suspicions of a cover-up began and have remained to this day. Within three months, the UK families formed a support group, with the motto "The truth must be known". By then, the families knew that we would have a hard fight ahead to get to that truth.
The bombing of Pan Am 103 is often referred to as an American disaster. Yet it killed people from 21 countries, 47 of them British and Irish. I believe that the fact that it happened on our soil leaves the British relatives feeling a sense of responsibility for all the victims. The bomb was loaded on to the plane at a British airport and it was our government's responsibility first to protect travellers from such an attack, and second to understand how and why it was allowed to happen and ensure that lessons were learned for air travellers around the world. And finally, to seek and bring to justice those responsible for carrying out the attack.
UK families took this responsibility within the context of a country that has experienced terrorism first-hand for many years, and has also seen numerous miscarriages of justice where innocent people were convicted and jailed for terrorist crimes they did not commit. So it is no surprise that many British relatives have a scrupulous desire to ensure this does not happen again. If Pan Am 103 had taken off from JFK airport, we don't know what difference this would have made to the way the UK families have responded.
I am not arguing Megrahi's innocence and I feel that his decision to exercise his right to silence in the original trial did nothing to strengthen his defence. His co-accused was found innocent, a strong outcome in a Scottish court, where there is the option of a "not proven" verdict. I welcomed the decision of the Scottish criminal cases review commission to refer Megrahi's case back to the high court for appeal, an opportunity for us to hear any evidence that might get us nearer to the truth. The abandonment of the appeal is the worst possible outcome, as that evidence will now not be heard. But whatever his guilt or innocence, one thing everyone agrees on, including the court, is that he did not act alone.
I find it astounding that the UK government seems to have washed its hands of the whole affair and passed on responsibility to Scotland. Jack Straw's involvement includes stints as home secretary, foreign secretary and justice secretary, and in each of these posts he has had dealings with UK relatives. It was he who concluded the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiations with Libya, started by Tony Blair. Yet, when we contacted him about the impact this would have on the families, he said it was a Scottish government responsibility.
Why was Megrahi not excluded from the agreement? Now, the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has to decide whether to repatriate Megrahi or to release him on compassionate grounds. It is extraordinary when such a momentous decision is to be made by a man with no background in the case. I understand why US senators are putting pressure on MacAskill not to release Megrahi, but wish they would also put pressure on the UK government to hold an independent inquiry that might establish some of the answers to the bigger questions: who ordered the bombing? What was the motivation for it? Why was it not prevented? These answers must be sought whatever Megrahi's guilt or innocence.
The primary reason given by Straw and others in government through the years is that such an inquiry might prejudice the criminal process. Now, that argument has no validity. Westminster must not wash its hands of Lockerbie. One step the UK government could take is to follow the example of the Hillsborough case, by releasing all official papers (now, more than 20 years after the bombing).
We will resolutely continue our search for the truth. If the UK government fails to hold an inquiry, we will lobby the Scottish government do so and ensure that all responsible British government ministers and officials are called to account.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece by Pamela Dix, a relative of one of the British victims of the Lockerbie disaster, on The Guardian's Comment is free website.]
'Megrahi doesn't have long to live'
A cancer specialist has called for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bomber before his condition worsens further.
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month.
[A report from the Press Association news agency.
The Scotsman has just published a report on its website. It reads in part:]
A cancer specialist called today for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bomber before his condition worsens further.
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month. (...)
Prof Sikora, medical director of the independent cancer care network CancerPartnersUK, said he was asked by the Libyan government to provide an independent medical assessment of Megrahi.
He visited him on July 28 with Professor Ibrahim Sherif from the Tripoli medical centre, Libya and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul general in Scotland.
"We were shown great courtesy by the prison staff and especially the prison doctor with whom we discussed medical details and reviewed records," he said.
"Despite rumours in the media to the contrary, Mr Al Megrahi has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread widely.
"Although he initially responded to treatment, this is no longer working. We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
The professor went on: "We found him to be a highly intelligent, well-educated and deeply religious person who wishes to spend his last few weeks with his wife and five children.
"We believe an urgent decision on his future is needed before any further medical deterioration takes place."
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month.
[A report from the Press Association news agency.
The Scotsman has just published a report on its website. It reads in part:]
A cancer specialist called today for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bomber before his condition worsens further.
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month. (...)
Prof Sikora, medical director of the independent cancer care network CancerPartnersUK, said he was asked by the Libyan government to provide an independent medical assessment of Megrahi.
He visited him on July 28 with Professor Ibrahim Sherif from the Tripoli medical centre, Libya and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul general in Scotland.
"We were shown great courtesy by the prison staff and especially the prison doctor with whom we discussed medical details and reviewed records," he said.
"Despite rumours in the media to the contrary, Mr Al Megrahi has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread widely.
"Although he initially responded to treatment, this is no longer working. We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
The professor went on: "We found him to be a highly intelligent, well-educated and deeply religious person who wishes to spend his last few weeks with his wife and five children.
"We believe an urgent decision on his future is needed before any further medical deterioration takes place."
Don't dishonour Lockerbie victims
If Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is released from prison, it will be an insult to my brother and all who died in the Lockerbie bombing
Imagine if one of the September 11 hijackers had lived, that he was fairly tried, convicted and sentenced to a lengthy jail term. Then, after just a few years, under an agreement with the Afghan government, we sent him back to serve out his term with the Taliban under Osama bin Laden.
Although it seems almost impossible, a painfully similar scenario is playing out in the Scotland. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – the terrorist convicted in the Lockerbie bombing – may soon be released by the Scottish government and handed over to Libya, the very government that plotted this cowardly mass murder.
The evidence against Megrahi is overwhelming and has withstood more than two fervent appeals. He was a member of Libyan intelligence travelling under a false passport to Malta on the day of the bombing, and lied about it more than once. Any rational person reviewing the evidence would conclude that Megrahi is guilty. Even more damning, the court's conviction clearly stated that Megrahi committed the murder for "furtherance of Libyan intelligence". There has been no regime change or democratic revolution. And yet the Scottish government is eager to return this murderer to his dictator – Muammar Gaddafi – a man who has gone on the record as hating all things western.
The Pan Am bombing was the largest single terrorist attack against the United States or the United Kingdom prior to September 11. Megrahi has served less than one month in prison for each person he killed. After all the years of fighting terrorism on their own soil, you would think that the UK wouldn't be so quick to send a terrorist back into the loving arms of the people who masterminded the deaths of so many innocents.
Fine, send him back, but make sure he's in a pine box before you do so.
There are rumours that Megrahi is dying of prostate cancer, and that the basis of the most recent appeal is one of mercy. I have never heard of a prisoner arranging a lesser sentence due to cancer, nor do I care if he dies in his cell. Where was the mercy when Megrahi killed 270 people? Didn't those victims deserve a life long enough to contract cancer?
There are also rumours that he may be innocent, but I fear those rumours are driven by a psychological hysteria brought on by grief. Some family members thought they would feel better once a man was convicted, but their emptiness remained so they created conspiracy theories and rumours. It gave them another rabbit to chase, and I feel sorry for them. However, the evidence is clear and overwhelming. And, this week, even Megrahi himself abandoned the appeal. If he is really innocent and actually going to die soon, why would he not want to clear his name?
But here is the worst part: I fear we will have dishonoured the victims if we let him walk away. I think of the children in Lockerbie, brimming with excitement four days before Christmas. How could the Scottish government send their murderer home to "die in peace"? What peace was there that chilly night in December more than 20 years ago? And, how will we all feel when Megrahi is given a hero's welcome back in Libya?
People of Scotland: he attacked your home, your children, your way of life. Please don't let them dishonour your country in this way.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece in The Guardian by Brian Flynn, the brother of one of the US victims of the destruction of Pan Am 103.
I make no comment, other than to say, as I have done before, that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the evidence against Megrahi "has withstood more than two fervent appeals". There has to date been only one appeal and that appeal did not consider the sufficiency of the evidence against Megrahi or whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on the basis of it.
The appeal judges in that one appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."]
Imagine if one of the September 11 hijackers had lived, that he was fairly tried, convicted and sentenced to a lengthy jail term. Then, after just a few years, under an agreement with the Afghan government, we sent him back to serve out his term with the Taliban under Osama bin Laden.
Although it seems almost impossible, a painfully similar scenario is playing out in the Scotland. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – the terrorist convicted in the Lockerbie bombing – may soon be released by the Scottish government and handed over to Libya, the very government that plotted this cowardly mass murder.
The evidence against Megrahi is overwhelming and has withstood more than two fervent appeals. He was a member of Libyan intelligence travelling under a false passport to Malta on the day of the bombing, and lied about it more than once. Any rational person reviewing the evidence would conclude that Megrahi is guilty. Even more damning, the court's conviction clearly stated that Megrahi committed the murder for "furtherance of Libyan intelligence". There has been no regime change or democratic revolution. And yet the Scottish government is eager to return this murderer to his dictator – Muammar Gaddafi – a man who has gone on the record as hating all things western.
The Pan Am bombing was the largest single terrorist attack against the United States or the United Kingdom prior to September 11. Megrahi has served less than one month in prison for each person he killed. After all the years of fighting terrorism on their own soil, you would think that the UK wouldn't be so quick to send a terrorist back into the loving arms of the people who masterminded the deaths of so many innocents.
Fine, send him back, but make sure he's in a pine box before you do so.
There are rumours that Megrahi is dying of prostate cancer, and that the basis of the most recent appeal is one of mercy. I have never heard of a prisoner arranging a lesser sentence due to cancer, nor do I care if he dies in his cell. Where was the mercy when Megrahi killed 270 people? Didn't those victims deserve a life long enough to contract cancer?
There are also rumours that he may be innocent, but I fear those rumours are driven by a psychological hysteria brought on by grief. Some family members thought they would feel better once a man was convicted, but their emptiness remained so they created conspiracy theories and rumours. It gave them another rabbit to chase, and I feel sorry for them. However, the evidence is clear and overwhelming. And, this week, even Megrahi himself abandoned the appeal. If he is really innocent and actually going to die soon, why would he not want to clear his name?
But here is the worst part: I fear we will have dishonoured the victims if we let him walk away. I think of the children in Lockerbie, brimming with excitement four days before Christmas. How could the Scottish government send their murderer home to "die in peace"? What peace was there that chilly night in December more than 20 years ago? And, how will we all feel when Megrahi is given a hero's welcome back in Libya?
People of Scotland: he attacked your home, your children, your way of life. Please don't let them dishonour your country in this way.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece in The Guardian by Brian Flynn, the brother of one of the US victims of the destruction of Pan Am 103.
I make no comment, other than to say, as I have done before, that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the evidence against Megrahi "has withstood more than two fervent appeals". There has to date been only one appeal and that appeal did not consider the sufficiency of the evidence against Megrahi or whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on the basis of it.
The appeal judges in that one appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."]
Hillary Clinton's remarks about repatriation
[The following is taken from the transcript on the Department of State's website of the Secretary of State's press conference yesterday on the occasion of her meeting with the Foreign Minister of Colombia:]
MODERATOR: The next question, Kim Ghattas from BBC.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much. I have two questions, if I may briefly. The first one is about Lockerbie. I was wondering how concerned you were about the fact that the man who was convicted for killing more than 180 Americans over Lockerbie may be released, and how much pressure are you putting on the Scottish authorities to convince them to not release him? (...)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well as to the first question, the United States has made its views known over a number of months and we continue to make the same point that we think it is inappropriate and very much against the wishes of the family members of the victims who suffered such grievous losses with the actions that led to the bombing of the airline. And we have made our views known to the Libyan Government as well.
I take this very personally because I knew a lot of the family members of those who were lost, because there was a large contingent from Syracuse University. So during the time that I had the great honor of representing New York, I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced. And I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime. We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so, and hope that they will not. (...)
MODERATOR: The next question, Kim Ghattas from BBC.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much. I have two questions, if I may briefly. The first one is about Lockerbie. I was wondering how concerned you were about the fact that the man who was convicted for killing more than 180 Americans over Lockerbie may be released, and how much pressure are you putting on the Scottish authorities to convince them to not release him? (...)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well as to the first question, the United States has made its views known over a number of months and we continue to make the same point that we think it is inappropriate and very much against the wishes of the family members of the victims who suffered such grievous losses with the actions that led to the bombing of the airline. And we have made our views known to the Libyan Government as well.
I take this very personally because I knew a lot of the family members of those who were lost, because there was a large contingent from Syracuse University. So during the time that I had the great honor of representing New York, I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced. And I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime. We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so, and hope that they will not. (...)
Ministers rushed through Lockerbie treaty, say MPs
MPs and peers claim that treaty with Libya was not allowed proper scrutiny, to protect business interests
Ministers [of the UK government, not the Scottish government] have been accused of rushing through a treaty with Libya that could allow the Lockerbie bomber to be repatriated, as part of an attempt to protest British oil interests.
Senior MPs and peers said that ministers had overlooked human rights in their haste to ratify the agreement. There are signs that a decision on the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be made in the next few days. (...)
MPs and peers on the joint human rights committee have said that they were denied the chance to scrutinise the Prisoner Transfer Agreement properly as it was rushed through by ministers to protect business interests in Libya. It was signed by Britain and Libya last November and ratified on 29 April this year.
Jack Straw, the justice secretary [in the UK, not Scottish, government], told the committee in a letter on 12 March: "A delay beyond April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude these agreements."
Members of the committee have been critical of the way the treaty was handled.
The Earl of Onslow, a Conservative member of the committee, told the Guardian: "This is not a good way to deal with matters of justice. One shouldn't allow whether one has a right to drill for oil in the Gulf of Sidra to have any influence on what is essentially a criminal matter."
Britain has built extensive business interests in Libya after Tony Blair visited Colonel Gadaffi in March 2004, officially ending his pariah status.
[From an article on the website of the New Statesman.]
Ministers [of the UK government, not the Scottish government] have been accused of rushing through a treaty with Libya that could allow the Lockerbie bomber to be repatriated, as part of an attempt to protest British oil interests.
Senior MPs and peers said that ministers had overlooked human rights in their haste to ratify the agreement. There are signs that a decision on the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be made in the next few days. (...)
MPs and peers on the joint human rights committee have said that they were denied the chance to scrutinise the Prisoner Transfer Agreement properly as it was rushed through by ministers to protect business interests in Libya. It was signed by Britain and Libya last November and ratified on 29 April this year.
Jack Straw, the justice secretary [in the UK, not Scottish, government], told the committee in a letter on 12 March: "A delay beyond April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude these agreements."
Members of the committee have been critical of the way the treaty was handled.
The Earl of Onslow, a Conservative member of the committee, told the Guardian: "This is not a good way to deal with matters of justice. One shouldn't allow whether one has a right to drill for oil in the Gulf of Sidra to have any influence on what is essentially a criminal matter."
Britain has built extensive business interests in Libya after Tony Blair visited Colonel Gadaffi in March 2004, officially ending his pariah status.
[From an article on the website of the New Statesman.]
Letters to the editor
A letter from Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West in The Guardian:
You give no details of the weakness of the decision against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie outrage (Transatlantic split over plans to free Libyan jailed for Lockerbie bombing, 14 August). The US and Britain violated international law by ignoring the Montreal Convention of 1971, the principal legal instrument in the case, which stipulated that the two suspects be tried in Libya.
That the subsequent, illegal court proceedings did not establish Megrahi's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is well shown by Lord Sutherland's own judicial summation: "On the matter of identification [by key witness Tony Gauci] … there are undoubtedly problems … In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications … In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
Before the trial, Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon, and put up at the Hilton hotel in Glasgow – none of which was revealed to the judges in the Zeist court. Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University said he knew of no other Scottish murder trial witness being taken on fishing trips by police. Nor were the judges told that on the day of the bombing there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area. The court verdict was a shameful political verdict under US pressure.
A letter from Iain A D Mann in The Herald:
Roger Terrett is almost completely right (Letters, August 18). First, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be returned to Libya within days; secondly, there will be no appeal hearing and no public inquiry; thirdly, the UK and US governments and security services are determined to prevent the truth coming out. But Mr Terrett is wrong to accuse Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of dithering.
Late last Thursday evening, the BBC confidently reported that Megrahi was to be released on compassionate grounds within a few days. Where did this leak come from? Surely not from the Scottish Government, as this would gain nothing and only pile even more pressure on Mr MacAskill. The only other likely sources are the UK government or one of the Scottish opposition parties.
The early leak gave these parties all weekend to build up a frenzy of feigned fury about being denied information and to demand a statement from the Justice Secretary and even the recall of the Scottish Parliament.
But Mr MacAskill did not receive the final reports from the prison governor and expert medical opinion until the weekend, and needed time to consider these. The leaked news also gave time for Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and a group of senators to attempt to influence a Scottish judicial matter that was none of their business.
Megrahi, who has consistently maintained his innocence, decided to withdraw his second appeal against conviction and has had his application to do so accepted by the High Court in Edinburgh - despite the fact a release on compassionate grounds was not conditional on this. Why did he change his mind abruptly, just when it seemed he could have his transfer to Libya and the appeal process continued? Was he leaned upon or given false advice? Again, we do not know.
The result is that the six serious grounds for concern identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding some of the evidence given, and evidence possibly deliberately withheld, at his original trial will never be aired or examined forensically in court. Who gains from this? The answer is obvious: the UK and US governments and their intelligence services, who have clearly been up to their eyes in this affair ever since the original accusations against Syria and Iran and the known terrorist el Talb were mysteriously abandoned and the focus was switched to Libya.
It is deeply worrying that our own and other democratically elected governments appear ready to manipulate, distort and conceal information, and to interfere with the due processes of law to protect underhand activities.
You give no details of the weakness of the decision against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie outrage (Transatlantic split over plans to free Libyan jailed for Lockerbie bombing, 14 August). The US and Britain violated international law by ignoring the Montreal Convention of 1971, the principal legal instrument in the case, which stipulated that the two suspects be tried in Libya.
That the subsequent, illegal court proceedings did not establish Megrahi's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is well shown by Lord Sutherland's own judicial summation: "On the matter of identification [by key witness Tony Gauci] … there are undoubtedly problems … In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications … In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
Before the trial, Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon, and put up at the Hilton hotel in Glasgow – none of which was revealed to the judges in the Zeist court. Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University said he knew of no other Scottish murder trial witness being taken on fishing trips by police. Nor were the judges told that on the day of the bombing there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area. The court verdict was a shameful political verdict under US pressure.
A letter from Iain A D Mann in The Herald:
Roger Terrett is almost completely right (Letters, August 18). First, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be returned to Libya within days; secondly, there will be no appeal hearing and no public inquiry; thirdly, the UK and US governments and security services are determined to prevent the truth coming out. But Mr Terrett is wrong to accuse Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of dithering.
Late last Thursday evening, the BBC confidently reported that Megrahi was to be released on compassionate grounds within a few days. Where did this leak come from? Surely not from the Scottish Government, as this would gain nothing and only pile even more pressure on Mr MacAskill. The only other likely sources are the UK government or one of the Scottish opposition parties.
The early leak gave these parties all weekend to build up a frenzy of feigned fury about being denied information and to demand a statement from the Justice Secretary and even the recall of the Scottish Parliament.
But Mr MacAskill did not receive the final reports from the prison governor and expert medical opinion until the weekend, and needed time to consider these. The leaked news also gave time for Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and a group of senators to attempt to influence a Scottish judicial matter that was none of their business.
Megrahi, who has consistently maintained his innocence, decided to withdraw his second appeal against conviction and has had his application to do so accepted by the High Court in Edinburgh - despite the fact a release on compassionate grounds was not conditional on this. Why did he change his mind abruptly, just when it seemed he could have his transfer to Libya and the appeal process continued? Was he leaned upon or given false advice? Again, we do not know.
The result is that the six serious grounds for concern identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding some of the evidence given, and evidence possibly deliberately withheld, at his original trial will never be aired or examined forensically in court. Who gains from this? The answer is obvious: the UK and US governments and their intelligence services, who have clearly been up to their eyes in this affair ever since the original accusations against Syria and Iran and the known terrorist el Talb were mysteriously abandoned and the focus was switched to Libya.
It is deeply worrying that our own and other democratically elected governments appear ready to manipulate, distort and conceal information, and to interfere with the due processes of law to protect underhand activities.
Media reaction to abandonment of appeal
Excerpts from Lucy Adams's report in The Herald:
Megrahi's defence team revealed that he made the decision to drop the case because he believed it would speed up the decision to allow him to return to Libya.
The Herald understands that Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, will allow Megrahi to return to Tripoli later this week on compassionate grounds. Ramadan begins on Friday and there is concern that he would not survive the strict fasting regime involved while in prison.
Seven senior US Senators yesterday wrote to the Justice Secretary to oppose such a move. They include leading Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
However, a Libyan judge, who was in court yesterday as an "observer" to the hearing, said he should be allowed to return home to his family.
Honorary Justice Hamdi Fannoush said outside the courtroom that dropping the case was "not in the interests of justice".
Mr Fannoush said: "People want to know what happened but this closes the door on that opportunity.
"Megrahi wanted to clear his name in court but after trying every possible way of getting home to see his family, he felt forced to make this sacrifice.
"In Libya everyone is talking about this. They believe he is innocent and cannot understand why he is still not home when he is so ill. Judicially nothing more can be done now other than a public inquiry." (...)
Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge who was sitting with Lord Eassie and Lady Paton, said it was "of the utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini makes an early decision on whether she intends to insist upon the appeal.
The judge said the court urged her to reach a decision on that matter without undue delay. If she has not dropped the appeal against the length of sentence there will be another procedural hearing in three weeks. Ronnie Clancy, QC for the Crown, said she had to consider the public interest.
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the bombing, said the outcome was "more or less what we expected". He went on: "It's a sad day really. It's the worst possible decision for the families because we lose the opportunity to hear evidence that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought was worth putting forward."
Mr Mosey said none of the big questions about Lockerbie had been answered.
"We are back where we started 21 years ago, asking for a wide-reaching independent inquiry into all aspects of this disaster," he said. (...)
Christine Grahame, a backbench SNP MSP who has visited Megrahi in prison, said outside court it was "extraordinary" that the Crown had not dropped its own appeal against Megrahi's sentence.
"The Crown was not prepared today to say whether they would drop their appeal." she said. "We had the extraordinary thing of the Crown saying they'd not seen the medical evidence."
She went on: "They have known this was coming before the court and I hope that within the next 24 hours they lodge something dropping their appeal."
Excerpts from David Maddox's report in The Scotsman:
Alex Salmond has given the strongest indication yet that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison, by insisting the decision would not be swayed by a show of strength from the United States.
Speaking after the receipt of a letter from several high-profile US senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, the First Minister said: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."
In the letter, received on the day Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi formally dropped his appeal, the senators urged justice secretary Kenny MacAskill not to allow the bomber to return to Libya. It followed similar moves from US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former presidential candidate John McCain. Last night in Washington, Mrs Clinton issued a strongly-worded plea to keep al-Megrahi in prison. "I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime," she said. "We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not." (...)
Megrahi could be returned to Libya on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer agreement.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision had been made and issued a strong vote of confidence in the justice secretary, who has been under fire over the past week for his handling of the issue, following leaks suggesting Megrahi is to be released.
Mr Salmond said: "I can also say that a final decision has not been taken by the justice secretary – he only received his final advice at the weekend. I'm absolutely confident if there is one person in Scotland I would absolutely trust to make the right decision for the right reasons, it's Kenny MacAskill."
He also tried to quash suggestions that the dropping of Megrahi's appeal had anything to do with a meeting between the convicted bomber and Mr MacAskill.
"What I can say is, the Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal," he said.
The First Minister's intervention has been widely perceived as an effort to regain some control over an issue on which his administration has been accused of losing its grip.
A leading article in The Guardian headed "Lockerbie case: the fix and the facts":
After a short hearing in Edinburgh yesterday, Scottish judges accepted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's application to drop his appeal against his conviction and life sentence for the Lockerbie bombing. As Lord Hamilton implied in his judgment, the court had little choice once Megrahi had decided to withdraw. The upshot is that, through no fault of their own, the judges gave the impression that justice had been relegated to a walk-on role in a well-orchestrated international political fix. Whatever the intentions of those involved or the requirements of compassion towards a dying man, that outcome leaves the Lockerbie families looking like the neglected victims of a stitch-up and the rule of law looking like an afterthought.
Even now, with the way clearing for Megrahi's early release, the decision that faces Scotland's justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is not straightforward. He has the authority to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of his cancer. Or he has the option of allowing him to be returned to serve out his time in a Libyan jail under the terms of an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments. There are other options too. But the underlying problem about the Lockerbie case is the same as always – the mismatch between the immensity of a crime that resulted in 270 deaths and the imperfections of the search for the truth about what happened. Exactly where Megrahi fits into the elusive story is not absolutely clear. Until yesterday, his lawyers had worked tirelessly to argue that he played no real role. All along, there have been parallel legal and political universes. As the saga has unwound, the facts have become less watertight and a fear has grown both of an injustice against Megrahi and, at least as importantly, the possibility that the outrage against Pan Am flight 103 might have been state-sponsored in a way that remains concealed from the courts.
In such circumstances, any release of Megrahi by a politician rather than by a court inevitably causes misgivings – and worse – whatever the motivation and however scrupulous the process. As a rule, ministers should not be asked to do the work of judges. They inevitably concern themselves with issues like raison d'état, party advantage, self-promotion and press reaction as much as dispensing justice or maintaining the rule of law. Mr MacAskill should certainly have kept quiet about his intentions until he had decided what to do. Instead he allowed the different interest groups to bid for his vote. The Lockerbie case has always involved political judgments as well as legal ones. Releasing Megrahi may indeed be compassionate and the least worst option in the current circumstances. But it is a bad outcome to a bad case nonetheless. Justice has not been done.
Excerpts from Charlene Sweeney's report in The Times:
The High Court in Edinburgh helped to clear the way for the Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya yesterday when it granted his application to abandon his appeal against conviction.
The White House responded by declaring that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi should remain in Scotland to serve out his life sentence. Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s spokesman, said: “It’s the policy of this Administration . . . that this individual should serve out his term where he’s serving it right now.”
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, called the Justice Secretary last week to insist that the Libyan serve the rest of his sentence in Scotland, and seven senior US senators, including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, sent a letter to Mr MacAskill expressing concern over his potential release.
Last night Mrs Clinton made clear her strong views on the matter. “I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime,” she said. “We are still enouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not.”
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, broke his silence yesterday on al-Megrahi’s possible release saying he believed that Mr MacAskill would “make the right decision for the right reasons”. He added: “There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice.”
Megrahi's defence team revealed that he made the decision to drop the case because he believed it would speed up the decision to allow him to return to Libya.
The Herald understands that Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, will allow Megrahi to return to Tripoli later this week on compassionate grounds. Ramadan begins on Friday and there is concern that he would not survive the strict fasting regime involved while in prison.
Seven senior US Senators yesterday wrote to the Justice Secretary to oppose such a move. They include leading Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
However, a Libyan judge, who was in court yesterday as an "observer" to the hearing, said he should be allowed to return home to his family.
Honorary Justice Hamdi Fannoush said outside the courtroom that dropping the case was "not in the interests of justice".
Mr Fannoush said: "People want to know what happened but this closes the door on that opportunity.
"Megrahi wanted to clear his name in court but after trying every possible way of getting home to see his family, he felt forced to make this sacrifice.
"In Libya everyone is talking about this. They believe he is innocent and cannot understand why he is still not home when he is so ill. Judicially nothing more can be done now other than a public inquiry." (...)
Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge who was sitting with Lord Eassie and Lady Paton, said it was "of the utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini makes an early decision on whether she intends to insist upon the appeal.
The judge said the court urged her to reach a decision on that matter without undue delay. If she has not dropped the appeal against the length of sentence there will be another procedural hearing in three weeks. Ronnie Clancy, QC for the Crown, said she had to consider the public interest.
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the bombing, said the outcome was "more or less what we expected". He went on: "It's a sad day really. It's the worst possible decision for the families because we lose the opportunity to hear evidence that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought was worth putting forward."
Mr Mosey said none of the big questions about Lockerbie had been answered.
"We are back where we started 21 years ago, asking for a wide-reaching independent inquiry into all aspects of this disaster," he said. (...)
Christine Grahame, a backbench SNP MSP who has visited Megrahi in prison, said outside court it was "extraordinary" that the Crown had not dropped its own appeal against Megrahi's sentence.
"The Crown was not prepared today to say whether they would drop their appeal." she said. "We had the extraordinary thing of the Crown saying they'd not seen the medical evidence."
She went on: "They have known this was coming before the court and I hope that within the next 24 hours they lodge something dropping their appeal."
Excerpts from David Maddox's report in The Scotsman:
Alex Salmond has given the strongest indication yet that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison, by insisting the decision would not be swayed by a show of strength from the United States.
Speaking after the receipt of a letter from several high-profile US senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, the First Minister said: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."
In the letter, received on the day Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi formally dropped his appeal, the senators urged justice secretary Kenny MacAskill not to allow the bomber to return to Libya. It followed similar moves from US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former presidential candidate John McCain. Last night in Washington, Mrs Clinton issued a strongly-worded plea to keep al-Megrahi in prison. "I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime," she said. "We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not." (...)
Megrahi could be returned to Libya on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer agreement.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision had been made and issued a strong vote of confidence in the justice secretary, who has been under fire over the past week for his handling of the issue, following leaks suggesting Megrahi is to be released.
Mr Salmond said: "I can also say that a final decision has not been taken by the justice secretary – he only received his final advice at the weekend. I'm absolutely confident if there is one person in Scotland I would absolutely trust to make the right decision for the right reasons, it's Kenny MacAskill."
He also tried to quash suggestions that the dropping of Megrahi's appeal had anything to do with a meeting between the convicted bomber and Mr MacAskill.
"What I can say is, the Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal," he said.
The First Minister's intervention has been widely perceived as an effort to regain some control over an issue on which his administration has been accused of losing its grip.
A leading article in The Guardian headed "Lockerbie case: the fix and the facts":
After a short hearing in Edinburgh yesterday, Scottish judges accepted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's application to drop his appeal against his conviction and life sentence for the Lockerbie bombing. As Lord Hamilton implied in his judgment, the court had little choice once Megrahi had decided to withdraw. The upshot is that, through no fault of their own, the judges gave the impression that justice had been relegated to a walk-on role in a well-orchestrated international political fix. Whatever the intentions of those involved or the requirements of compassion towards a dying man, that outcome leaves the Lockerbie families looking like the neglected victims of a stitch-up and the rule of law looking like an afterthought.
Even now, with the way clearing for Megrahi's early release, the decision that faces Scotland's justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is not straightforward. He has the authority to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of his cancer. Or he has the option of allowing him to be returned to serve out his time in a Libyan jail under the terms of an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments. There are other options too. But the underlying problem about the Lockerbie case is the same as always – the mismatch between the immensity of a crime that resulted in 270 deaths and the imperfections of the search for the truth about what happened. Exactly where Megrahi fits into the elusive story is not absolutely clear. Until yesterday, his lawyers had worked tirelessly to argue that he played no real role. All along, there have been parallel legal and political universes. As the saga has unwound, the facts have become less watertight and a fear has grown both of an injustice against Megrahi and, at least as importantly, the possibility that the outrage against Pan Am flight 103 might have been state-sponsored in a way that remains concealed from the courts.
In such circumstances, any release of Megrahi by a politician rather than by a court inevitably causes misgivings – and worse – whatever the motivation and however scrupulous the process. As a rule, ministers should not be asked to do the work of judges. They inevitably concern themselves with issues like raison d'état, party advantage, self-promotion and press reaction as much as dispensing justice or maintaining the rule of law. Mr MacAskill should certainly have kept quiet about his intentions until he had decided what to do. Instead he allowed the different interest groups to bid for his vote. The Lockerbie case has always involved political judgments as well as legal ones. Releasing Megrahi may indeed be compassionate and the least worst option in the current circumstances. But it is a bad outcome to a bad case nonetheless. Justice has not been done.
Excerpts from Charlene Sweeney's report in The Times:
The High Court in Edinburgh helped to clear the way for the Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya yesterday when it granted his application to abandon his appeal against conviction.
The White House responded by declaring that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi should remain in Scotland to serve out his life sentence. Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s spokesman, said: “It’s the policy of this Administration . . . that this individual should serve out his term where he’s serving it right now.”
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, called the Justice Secretary last week to insist that the Libyan serve the rest of his sentence in Scotland, and seven senior US senators, including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, sent a letter to Mr MacAskill expressing concern over his potential release.
Last night Mrs Clinton made clear her strong views on the matter. “I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime,” she said. “We are still enouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not.”
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, broke his silence yesterday on al-Megrahi’s possible release saying he believed that Mr MacAskill would “make the right decision for the right reasons”. He added: “There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice.”
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Gaddafi Critical US Objection to al-Megrahi's Release
High-level Libyan sources have disclosed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Libyan Leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, who recently met a US congressional delegation in Tripoli, sharply criticized the US objection to the release for health reasons of Libyan citizen Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was convicted in the Lockerbie case.
Al- Gaddafi considered what he called the hard-line US stand as one which does not contribute to building strong relations of friendship between Tripoli and Washington. The sources said al-Gaddafi urged the United States to bypass al-Megrahi's case as quickly as possible due to his health conditions so that he can spend his remaining days with his family and relatives due to the deterioration of his medical condition caused by cancer.
But on the other hand, a high-level Libyan official expected al-Megrahi's return to his country within days after his release from his current jail in Scotland because of the deterioration in his health. (...)
On its part, a source in al-Megrahi's family, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the family was waiting for his return as soon as possible and praised the role of al- Gaddafi Development Foundation, which is led by the Libyan leader's second son Saif-al-Islam, in returning al-Megrahi to his homeland and family. It added: "We thank Engineer Saif-al-Islam al- Gaddafi for all his positive efforts in this and also thank the foundation he leads for its constant care for him and his family through his years in jail."
[From a report from Cairo on the website of Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the leading Arabic language daily newspapers.]
Al- Gaddafi considered what he called the hard-line US stand as one which does not contribute to building strong relations of friendship between Tripoli and Washington. The sources said al-Gaddafi urged the United States to bypass al-Megrahi's case as quickly as possible due to his health conditions so that he can spend his remaining days with his family and relatives due to the deterioration of his medical condition caused by cancer.
But on the other hand, a high-level Libyan official expected al-Megrahi's return to his country within days after his release from his current jail in Scotland because of the deterioration in his health. (...)
On its part, a source in al-Megrahi's family, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the family was waiting for his return as soon as possible and praised the role of al- Gaddafi Development Foundation, which is led by the Libyan leader's second son Saif-al-Islam, in returning al-Megrahi to his homeland and family. It added: "We thank Engineer Saif-al-Islam al- Gaddafi for all his positive efforts in this and also thank the foundation he leads for its constant care for him and his family through his years in jail."
[From a report from Cairo on the website of Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the leading Arabic language daily newspapers.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)