Justice Secretary MacAskill expected to lose job in Scottish Cabinet reshuffle

[What follows is taken from an article published in today’s edition of The Scotsman:]

Kenny MacAskill is expected to be the most high-profile casualty when Nicola Sturgeon puts her own mark on the SNP administration by reshuffling her cabinet.

Last night, Ms Sturgeon was putting the finishing touches to the make-up of her team, amid intense speculation Mr MacAskill will lose his job as justice secretary.

Ms Sturgeon’s aides indicated the reshuffle would happen “very shortly” and there were strong signs that the announcement will be made today.

Mr MacAskill has defied numerous calls to quit during his controversial spell in charge of the justice department.

A signal that he was finally on his way out emerged at Holyrood yesterday.

Fielding questions for the first time as First Minister, Ms Sturgeon pointedly failed to defend the justice secretary when Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie suggested “everyone knew he was going”.

Ms Sturgeon responded by listing some of the Scottish Government’s justice policies, but failed to mention Mr MacAskill.

After First Minister’s Questions, Ms Sturgeon’s spokesman was asked why she had not denied Mr MacAskill faced the sack. He said: “I am not going to indulge in fevered speculation. The First Minister will confirm her line-up very shortly.” (...)

Last night, the SNP’s opponents were taking it as read that Mr MacAskill will go. (...)

Ever since Mr MacAskill freed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, his time at the justice department has been dogged by controversy.

[RB: Kenny MacAskill has not been a distinguished Cabinet Secretary for Justice. His stonewalling and prevarication over the need for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial has been disgraceful. The feebleness of his excuses for refusing such an inquiry has been pitiful. The refusal to appoint an independent investigator to look into Justice for Megrahi's allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial was shameful. One thing he cannot justly be criticised for, however, is his compassionate release of Megrahi (though the procedures that he chose to adopt in reaching his decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release are open to censure).]

It remains a mystery how Megrahi came to be convicted

[On this date in 2000, the Crown at Camp Zeist closed its case against Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhima. In an article that I wrote at the time for The Lockerbie Trial website, I attempted to assess what the evidence led by the Crown might be held to establish:]

What could the Crown be held to have proved?

On the assumption that the witnesses who have so far given evidence which is favourable to the Crown case are accepted by the judges as being credible (ie honest and truthful) and reliable (ie accurate in their observation and recollection of events) and having regard to the matters that have been agreed between prosecution and defence in Joint Minutes, it is possible that the following might be held to have been provisionally established, always subject to any later contrary evidence which may be led by the defence.

1. That the seat of the explosion was in a particular Samsonite suitcase (which contained clothing manufactured in Malta and sold both there and elsewhere) at or near the bottom of a particular aluminium luggage container (AVE 4041).

2. That the bomb had been contained in a black Toshiba RTSF-16 cassette recorder.

3. That a fragment of circuit board from an MST-13 timer manufactured by MeBo AG formed part of the timing mechanism which detonated the bomb.

4. That MeBo AG supplied MST-13 timers to the Libyan army, and may have done so also to other customers such as the East German Ministerium fuer Staatssicherheit (Stasi).

5. That the first-named accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was a member of the Libyan intelligence services; was known to the owners of MeBo AG; was involved, in an official capacity, in obtaining for Libya electronic equipment (including timers) from MeBo; and that a company of which a Libyan intelligence operative was a principal for a time had office accommodation in the premises occupied by MeBo in Zurich.

6. That Megrahi possessed and used Libyan passports in false names.

7. That Megrahi, on occasion under the false name of Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad, visited Malta on a number of occasions in 1988, including the night of 20/21 December.

8. That Megrahi arrived in Malta by air from Tripoli with a hard shelled brown suitcase at some point in the two or three weeks following 7 December 1988. [RB: This evidence came from Abdul Majid Giaka whose testimony on this and all other issues, except the structure and membership of the Libyan intelligence services, was ultimately held by the judges to be wholly lacking in credibility and rejected.]

9. That some weeks before 21 December 1988 a person who “resembled a lot” Megrahi, but who also “resembled a lot” Mohamed Abu Talb (a Crown witness named in the special defence of incrimination lodged by the defence) bought in Malta items of clothing that the Crown claims were in the suitcase that contained the bomb.

10. That in 1986 a conversation took place between Megrahi and Abdul Majid Giaka regarding the possibility of a piece of unaccompanied baggage being inserted onto a British aircraft at Malta. In the course of that conversation Megrahi used the words “Don't rush things.” [RB: This evidence, along with most of Giaka’s testimony, was ultimately rejected by the judges as wholly lacking in credibility.]

11. That the second-named accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhima, travelled by air to Malta on 20 December 1988 and departed by air the following day.

12. That Fhima was then in possession of a permit (obtained when he was station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines) which allowed him access to airside at Luqa Airport.

13. That Fhima when he was station manager for LAA (which he ceased to be some time before the Lockerbie bombing) kept blocks of plastic explosive in his desk drawer at Luqa Airport. [RB: This evidence emanated from Giaka and was ultimately rejected by the judges as lacking in credibility.]

14. That a diary kept by Fhima contained entries for a date six days before the Lockerbie bombing referring (a) to the arrival of Megrahi in Malta from Zurich and (b) to getting tags from Air Malta.

15. That a piece of interline baggage arrived at the luggage station at Frankfurt Airport used for baggage destined for flight Pan Am 103A (the feeder flight to Heathrow) on 21 December 1988 at a time consistent with its having been offloaded from flight KM 180 from Malta.

16. That it would have been theoretically possible for a suitcase to be introduced into the interline baggage system at Luqa, although there is no documentary record of any such piece of baggage on Air Malta flight KM 180 to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988.

Apart from the consistency in timing referred to in paragraph 15 and the theoretical possibility mentioned in paragraph 16, no evidence has been led which could be held to establish that the Samsonite suitcase containing the bomb was launched on its fatal progress from Malta (as distinct from being directly loaded onto Pan Am 103 at Heathrow, or starting its journey at Frankfurt).

[RB: Having regard to the above and to the rejection by the court of the testimony of the mercenary fantasist Giaka, it remains a mystery to me how, at the end of the trial, Megrahi came to be convicted, particularly after the defence’s meteorological evidence established to the very highest degree of probability that the purchase of the clothing on Malta took place on a date on which Megrahi was not on the island.]

The text of the Lumpert affidavit

[It has been suggested to me by a regular reader of this blog that in the light of recent posts referring to the Lumpert affidavit and the alleged fabrication of timer fragment PT-35b, it would be useful to have the text of the affidavit available here on the blog. A copy of the original affidavit in German can be found here on the MEBO Ltd website. What follows is a translation by me, making some use of the English-language version also to be found on that website:]

AFFIDAVIT:

of Mr Ulrich Lumpert, electronic engineer,

ex-employee at company MEBO Ltd Telecommunication

8004 Zurich / Switzerland, between 1978 and 1994.

Ex a witness during the trial 'Fhimah, Al Megrahi'

(Lockerbie-case) 2000 in Kamp van Zeist NL.

Personal data

Name: Ulrich Lumpert;

Date of birth: 20 September 1942;

Occupation: electronic engineer;

Residence: (...), Kt. Zurich / Switzerland

°°°

AFFIDAVIT:

The following facts, which correspond to the truth, were signed by Mr Ulrich Lumpert on 18th July 2007.

1. During the examination by the Bundespolizei (Federal Police) "BUPO" Switzerland, FBI and Scottish Police present in Zurich in 1991

and

the examination of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) (Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation) by Commissioner Fuhl in Konstanz / Germany 1991

as well as

in the "Lockerbie Trial" in Kamp van Zeist 2000,

I had testified as witness No 550 and stated in the record, that of the 3 pieces of hand-made prototypes MST-13 timer PC-boards the third MST-13 PC-board was broken and I had thrown it away;

ULRICH LUMPERT, 8122 Binz / Kt. Zurich / Switzerland

Page 2  U.L.

I built two functioning MST-13 Timers with the remaining 2 PC-Boards, which were delivered to the GDR State Security Service (STASI) by Mr Bollier;

The MST-13 PC-Boards consisted of 8 layers of fiberglass and were brown in colour.

2. These statements recorded by me were not correct.

I confirm today on 18th July 2007 that I stole the third hand-manufactured MST-13 timer PC-board consisting of 8 layers of fiberglass from MEBO Ltd and gave it without permission on *22nd June 1989 to a person who was an official investigator in the "Lockerbie case".

3.  At this *time I did not know that the MST-13 timer PC-board was used for a specific purpose in connection with the attack on PanAm 103, otherwise I would have requested permission from one of the owners of M/S Mebo Ltd (Meister or Bollier) to release the MST-13 PC-board.

4. In addition I handed over without permission a summary of the production films, hand-stuck templates and the blueprints of the MST-13 timer production in a yellow evelope to Det Superintendent James Gilchrist, Scottish Police during a *visit to Zurich in June1991.

(* according to Mebo: without the necessary sanction of the Swiss law enforcement).

5. Reason why I did not explain the true background before the court proceedings. I have been living in an indescribable condition of depression of and fear since my second examination by the police in 1991.

I got a shock and was in a significant state of anxiety when I was shown the photograph with the apparent MST-13 timer fragment by the "BUPO", FBI and the Scottish Police, surprisingly for the first time in *mid January 1991, which was apparently found in Lockerbie and they confronted me with the fact that this MST-13 timer fragment was found in Lockebie and was a part of the ignition device of the suitcase with explosives, which caused the Boeing 747 Pan Am Flight 103 to crash, killing 270 people.

ULRICH LUMPERT, 8122 Binz / Kt. Zurich / Switzerland

Page 3  U.L.

*According to Mr Bollier`s statement he was shown photographs of the MST-13 timer fragment (No.PT/35, PT/35(b) etc.) on 23rd April 1990 by "BUPO" and on 15th November 1990 by FBI and the Scottish Police.

Although the portrayed MST-13 fragment at this time itself, had been sawed into two pieces apparently for forensic reasons, it did not escape me that the MST-13 fragment on the police photograph (No. PT/35(b) came from the non-operational MST-13 prototype PC-board that I had stolen; this because there are clear characteristics e.g. on a specific soldering terminal, a relay had never been soldered.

The soldering terminal was flat and clean at this place.

Take note: I saw the photograph with the illustration of the non-processed originals, apparently the MST-13 timer fragment under "Evidence No. PT-35, image 9 from , for the first time at MEBO Ltd after the "Lockerbie- Appeal 2001", before my first Affidavit.

I clearly recognize the scratched remnants of the soldering tracts on this enlarged digital police photograph. I had nothing to do with the letter "M" (possibly an abbreviation of Muster 'sample'), which appears.

When I realized that the MST-13 PC-board, after it was handed over by me without permission was misused for deliberate politically criminal "action", it was clear to me that I was stuck "in the middle of it" and decided to keep quiet, for it could have been extremely dangerous for me as an unintentional "bearer of secrets".

I am sorry for the consequences of my silence at that time for the innocent Libyan Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, sentenced to life imprisonment, and for the country of Libya.

ULRICH LUMPERT, 8122 Binz / Kt. Zurich, Switzerland

Page 4  U.L.

With the information known to me I would like to put an end to the accusation that Libya is responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy by "manufacturing" MST-13 timer-link with criminal intent.

6. The reason why I reveal this fundamentally important information only today:

I would like to use this opportunity to clear my conscience, because I cannot be prosecuted for stealing, delivering and making false statements about the MST-13 timer PC-board, on grounds of statutory limitation.

7. The time is right for this, because action for a 2nd appeal has been granted in the "Lockerbie Case" on account of "Miscarriage of Justice".

I would also like to apologize to Mr Meister and Mr Bollier, MEBO Ltd for the damage caused to their prestige.

I herewith declare that the contents of the Affidavit are true.

4 pages.

Zürich, 18.07.2007

Signature:

(U.L.)  Ulrich Lumpert

__________________________________________________________

Only valid for the German Affidavit

Official Certification

This is to certify that this copy corresponds exactly with the document (4 single pages) shown to us this day and declared to be the orginal.

Zurich, this 18. 07. 2007

B No. 2070

Fee: Fr. 35.-- NOTARIAT ALTSTETTEN- ZÜRICH

Signature:

Walter Wieland, certifying officer

The MEBO and Bollier saga continues

[A number of Swiss news websites are running a report about the refusal of a special federal prosecutor to pursue the complaint made by Edwin Bollier and MEBO against a former Swiss federal police officer. A translation of the report on the Blick website (by me, with help from Google Translate) reads as follows:]

The special Federal Prosecutor, Felix Bänziger, has declined to open a criminal investigation against a former federal police officer in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. The complaint had been filed by the Zurich businessman Edwin Bollier.

The timer for the bomb allegedly came from Bollier’s company. According to Bollier’s statement, an employee of his company, Mebo AG, illegally handed over a prototype of the relevant timer to an official of the federal police six months after the attack.

This prototype was then used to construct a "fabricated" production which was used in the Lockerbie trial process against Libya. A Scottish court convicted a Libyan intelligence officer in 2001 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 270 people were killed in the attack in 1988.

In 2011 Bollier lodged a complaint against the former federal police officer. In March this year the Department of Justice (FOJ) issued an authorization to prosecute the officer who now works for the Federal Intelligence Service. Special prosecutor Felix Bänziger was commissioned to pursue the complaint.

Bänziger has now come to the conclusion that the alleged offences were already time-barred before receipt of Bollier’s complaint in 2011, the federal prosecutor’s office announced on Tuesday.

"At the very latest, all the alleged facts could have been known during the trial before the Scottish High Court in 2000," it said in the release. All possible actions were therefore time-barred in 2010. Up to the year 2002 there was a limitation period of ten years for the prosecution of crimes.

Under the current law the prosecution of crimes is barred only after 15 years. However, the 10 year limitation period was the governing law at the time of the act, the federal prosecutor’s office notes. Bänziger’s decision not to pursue the complaint is not yet final. Edwin Bollier is still on the way to the Federal Criminal Court. [RB: And from there, if necessary, to the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Bollier has indicated.]

In May this year, the Federal Civil Court rejected a government liability claim made by Bollier. The claim in which Bollier sought from the state six million dollars plus interest, was held to have been made too late.

According to Bollier, because of the media reports on the alleged involvement of his company in the Lockerbie attack, he lost major clients and was driven to the brink of ruin.

Alex Salmond and the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi

[A number of media organisations in their reflections on Alex Salmond’s tenure of office as First Minister on his last full day, refer to the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Here is an example from today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph:]

The Scottish Government’s decision to release the man convicted of Britain’s worst mass murder prompted revulsion and criticism from around the world, especially when he was given a hero’s welcome in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, complete with a crowd waving Scottish flags.

Although the decision was ostensibly made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, Salmond’s involvement was shown later by a series of letters in which he lobbied figures such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Donald Trump to publicly support it.

The bomber was released on compassionate grounds as he supposedly had less than three months to live but ended up living nearly three years, prompting further fury from some of the families of his victims.

[If the release decision was overwhelmingly unpopular overseas (by which is meant the United States) the same cannot be said of domestic public opinion. What follows is from an item posted on this blog on 4 September 2009:]

Almost half of all Scots now support Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's controversial decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in a dramatic shift in public opinion.

The YouGov poll of 1556 people found 45% thought Mr MacAskill made the right call to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last month on compassionate grounds. The same percentage said he was wrong.

[And the following poll results from Scottish local newspapers is taken from an item posted on this blog on 31 August 2009:]

Those For first number, those Against second number

Dumfries & Galloway Standard 88.4% 11.6%

Annandale Observer 73% 27% (Lockerbie paper)

Perthshire Advertiser 90.6% 8.4%

Ross-shire Journal 87% 13%

Scotsman 58% 42%

Lennox Herald 80.5% 19.5%

Oban Times 89% 11%

Kilmarnock Standard 72.5% 28.5%

East Kilbride News 71% 29%

West Lothian Courier 75.2% 24.8%

Hamilton Advertiser 60.3% 39.7%

Airdrie Advertiser 56.1% 43.9%

Wishaw Press 83% 17%

Paisley Daily Express 62.23% 37.7%

Lockerbie and international perception of Scotland's justice system

[The following are excerpts from an article by John Sturrock in today’s edition of The Scotsman about the prospects for Scotland as a centre for international mediation:]

Singapore is a small island which packs a disproportionate punch in South East Asia. I recently took part in the launch of the Singapore International Mediation Centre. (...)

Are there similar opportunities for Scotland? Our location and positioning at the north western edge of Europe is in some respects not dissimilar to that of Singapore in the south east of Asia. However, we are not the international commercial “hub” which has been Singapore’s raison d’être since its establishment as a trading post by Stamford Raffles nearly 200 years ago. Location is one aspect. Another is our close proximity to another major hub, namely London. Realistically, we are unlikely to see a significant shift of commercial focus from there.

That said, what might Scotland offer? Well, a reputation for honesty, fair-dealing, hospitality and good manners should be a good start. (...)

Finally, the international perception of our domestic justice system could matter. It is still not clear, for example, just how profoundly the continuing uncertainty over the Lockerbie verdict affects international confidence in Scotland’s capability to hold itself out as a reputable centre for solving international problems. An interesting issue to wrestle with.

His faith in Scottish justice was understandably low

What follows is an item first posted on this blog on this date five years ago:

Fragments of truth

[This is the heading over an article in the current issue of the magazine Scottish Left Review by Mark Hirst (...) The full article can (and should) be read here. The following are excerpts.]

Earlier this year I met with the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in British history. Now back in Libya to await a verdict from a ‘higher court’, terminally ill Abdelbaset al Megrahi steadfastly maintains his innocence in the murder of 270 people over Lockerbie in December 1988. Many professionals involved in the case including US intelligence officers, legal experts and police investigators also share his view, in spite of the concerted propaganda efforts by vested interests in the Crown Office, FBI and US Justice and State Departments. Yet for reasons still to be fully explained by Megrahi, his defence or the Scottish Government, in August this year he dropped his second appeal and a week later Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released him on compassionate grounds. That decision resulted in a hysterical reaction from representatives of some of the US relatives and somewhat half-hearted condemnatory slogans from the Obama led US Government.

Megrahi was not required to drop his appeal in order to qualify for compassionate release. He subsequently claimed in a newspaper interview after his return to Libya that no pressure was placed on him to do so. So why did he? When I, along with MSP Christine Grahame, met with him his focus had been very much on the detail of the case and the new evidence that would be led during his second appeal. But he made it clear that his priorities had changed since discovering he was terminally ill last year. His over-riding objective was to return to Libya and to see his family before he died. He understood fully why some, mostly UK victim’s relatives, were keen to see the appeal continue, but told us it would not take them any closer to the truth and who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of their relatives.

Megrahi literally was running out of time and was deeply concerned that he would, as he put it very directly, return to Libya in a wooden box in the hold of a cargo plane. I believe he was genuinely supportive of the need of relatives of victims to get to the ‘truth’, but those efforts were not going to bring him any closer to his family in Libya before he died. His faith in Scottish justice and the legal process he had been subjected to was understandably low. “If they have a brave judge who looks and says ‘good or bad’, ‘yes or no’, but I doubt that the chair of the judges, who chairs all the other judges in Scotland, will turn around and say that all the other judges [at the trial and the first appeal] before got it wrong.” Megrahi said, before adding, “They will want to show, to keep the integrity of the system, that they don’t care if they have to keep an innocent man in prison to do that.”

The integrity in the Scottish legal system, whether it deserves it or not, is right at the heart of this issue, because that is what is at stake if the complete truth behind this case emerges and that is why very prominent vested interests are even now working hard to close the case down. The latest spurious police investigation being just one example that will ensure no independent inquiry takes place any time soon. (…)

The message to Megrahi, whether made explicitly or not, appears to have persuaded him to drop his 18-year fight to clear his name. That view was confirmed when his defence counsel Maggie Scott QC addressed the High Court in August to confirm Megrahi was indeed dropping his appeal. Scott stated that her client believed that this action would “assist in the early determination of those applications”. Applications, plural. The link was made explicitly. Ultimately Megrahi was led to believe by vested interests in our own legal establishment that his only chance of returning home was by dropping his second appeal and to leave his family name forever associated with the bombing of Pan Am 103. That outcome is a scandal that will haunt the Scottish legal system in particular, for decades to come.

So was there a conspiracy? Perhaps, but there certainly has been a cover-up which is very much ongoing. A cover-up of the weakness of the evidence, the weakness of the criminal investigation and a cover-up of the shameful conclusions reached by three Scottish judges at the trial. (…)

Earlier this year Dutch filmmaker Gideon Levy completed an award-winning documentary, still to be shown in the UK, that proves that the then-Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of [Carmyllie] was unaware that the crucial fragment used to link Libya to the attack went to the United States FBI lab for examination. It now transpires it also went to West Germany, although despite recent Crown Office claims that movement was not explicitly made during the trial. Levy’s film includes interviews with the chief prosecutor in the case, Lord Fraser, the FBI’s Senior Investigating Officer Richard Marquise and Robert Baer who for 30 years worked in the Middle East Directorate of the CIA and was a senior US intelligence operative. What emerges during the course of Levy’s film is the staggering revelation that this crucial evidence was not properly secured by Scottish police and should never have gone to the US. The importance of this piece of evidence cannot be [overstated]. Marquise states that without the fragment, known as PT-35, there would have been no indictment, let along conviction of Megrahi.

Lord Fraser, who brought the original indictments against Megrahi is then asked if he was aware that PT-35 had ever been to the US. “Not to my knowledge... I would not have permitted this as it was important evidence that could have been lost in transit, or tampered with or lost,” He is then shown the interview with Marquise, who confirms the fragment did go to the US before the trial. Fraser responds; “Well this is all news to me”. Later in the film Levy challenges Marquise to clarify whether PT-35 was taken to the US without the knowledge of the Lord Advocate. Standing next to him is retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, the senior Scottish investigating officer in the case. Marquise initially seems confused over whether PT-35 was taken to Washington, contradicting his earlier on-camera interview, before Henderson interrupts and states categorically that the fragment was never in the US. “It was too important to be waved around”, Henderson states. “It was never in the US, it was never out of Scottish control. They [The FBI] came to the UK to see it, but it was never in the US.” After filming Marquise emailed Levy to “clarify” and confirm that PT-35 was indeed in the US and apologised for the earlier confusion. It is clear that if Marquise did not understand the significance of PT-35s foreign movements then Stuart Henderson clearly did.

What has not yet been made public, until now, is that Stuart Henderson states in his precognition statement that he gave to the Crown, ahead of Megrahi’s second appeal, that the fragment, PT-35 definitely did go the US. Henderson states that on the 22nd of June 1990 he travelled to the US with the fragment accompanied by Chief Inspector McLean, DI Williamson and Alan Feraday of RARDE, the forensic explosives laboratory in Kent. According to Henderson’s statement to the Crown they met with Metropolitan Field Officers of the FBI and Thomas Thurman, the FBI official who, it is claimed later ‘identified’ the origin of the fragment. Thurman has a degree in political science and has no relevant formal qualifications in electronics or any other scientific field.

I have also seen one of the crucial productions that was to be led during Megrahi’s second appeal which is the official log that accompanied PT-35 and is meant to record each movement of the evidence in order to protect the evidential chain. At each point it is signed for by the relevant police officer. This is an extremely important process and is meant to ensure the chain of evidence is not broken. There is no entry in this log recording that PT-35 ever went to the US, at any point. That has to cast serious doubts over its integrity in light of Henderson’s precognition statement and the confirmation from the FBI’s Dick Marquise that the fragment was in the US prior to the trial.

Establishing the truth transcends the mere fact of a verdict against one individual

What follows is taken from an item posted on this blog on this date in 2010:

What Justice for Megrahi seeks to achieve

[Following the appearance of Justice for Megrahi committee members before the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee last Tuesday, Dr Morag Kerr who had not been able to attend the hearing contacted me to express her congratulations on the team's performance. However, she felt that one point had not perhaps been adequately stressed. I agreed, and asked Dr Kerr to let me have a piece for posting on the blog. Here it is.]

The question has been asked, would it not be fair to say that Megrahi had his chance, he had his appeal ongoing, but he chose to drop it. Why should he be given another bite at the cherry?

To ask such a question is to misunderstand profoundly the point of the petition. Despite its name, “Justice for Megrahi” is not and never has been concerned with giving Mr al-Megrahi “another bite at the cherry”. It is concerned with establishing the truth, which transcends the mere fact of a verdict against one individual.

Over a million pounds of public money was spent by the SCCRC on their 3½-year investigation, and the outcome was an 800-page report with 13 volumes of appendices, and no less than six grounds on which a miscarriage of justice was suspected. What has been revealed of that report suggests that the original investigation quite simply got the wrong man, which means that the real perpetrators of the Lockerbie atrocity have never been identified.

Mr al-Megrahi stated that he dropped the appeal in order to improve his chances of returning home to Libya before he died. It appears he was mistaken in that belief, and how he came to be under that misapprehension might in itself be an interesting question. Be that as it may, the dropping of the appeal left the SCCRC findings untested in court. It is the contention of JFM that this unfortunate development should not be allowed to bury the truth, if the truth is indeed contained in these 800 pages.

Taking a wider view, it cannot be overemphasised that the conviction as it stands is acting as an insuperable barrier to any further investigation of the Lockerbie disaster. While JFM is not asking the Scottish government to investigate the identity of the real perpetrators, which would indeed be outwith its remit, it is clear that if indeed the wrong man was convicted, this is the first error that must be addressed before any further steps can be taken to hold a more wide-ranging enquiry, or indeed to re-open the criminal investigation.

[RB: The need for an independent inquiry is just as urgent today, notwithstanding the submission of a fresh application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by Abdelbaset Megrahi’s family and relatives of Pan Am 103 victims jointly. A new appeal allowed by the SCCRC would, it is expected, overturn Megrahi’s conviction, but would not necessarily go very far towards uncovering what actually happened. That is why an inquiry remains necessary.]