Libyan PM denies Tripoli involved in Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a Reuters news agency report published on this date in 2004. It reads in part:]

Libyan Prime Minister Shokri Ghanem has denied his country's guilt in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people and says Tripoli has only agreed to pay damages to victims in order to "buy peace".

In comments which appear directly to contradict recent more conciliatory moves by Tripoli, Ghanem said Libya had refused to apologise for the attack because that was not part of the deal.

"We reached an agreement in which we feel that we bought peace," he told BBC radio in an interview on Tuesday.

In a deal reached after years of negotiations, Libya last year agreed to pay $2.7 billion (1.4 billion pounds) in compensation for Lockerbie victims -- many of whom were Britons and Americans travelling on Pan Am flight 103 when it was blown up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

In response, United Nations Security Council voted in September to lift sanctions on Libya, first imposed in 1992.

Ghanem said the pressure of years of US and United Nations sanctions against Libya, and a desire to "put the whole case behind us" had forced Libya to agree to compensation.

"After the problems we had faced because of the sanctions ... we thought it was easier for us to buy peace," he said.

Asked whether that meant Libya did not see the compensation payments as an admission of guilt for the bombing, he said: "I agree with that, and that is why I say we bought peace." (...)

Ghanem's comments threaten to sour relations between Tripoli and Britain and the U.S at a time when Libya had been making efforts to reintegrate into the international community.

In a dramatic move last December, Libya promised to abandon plans to develop atomic and other mass destruction weapons.

The British government played a key diplomatic role in securing December's weapons agreement, which has given a huge boost to Libya's efforts to end its international isolation.

Washington has yet to lift economic sanctions, including a ban on travel by US citizens to Libya, but it agreed in January to take "tangible steps" towards improving relations with Libya if it honoured its pledge to give up banned weapons.

Britain has moved faster than the United States to restore ties and British Prime Minister Tony Blair is planning landmark talks with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi later this year.

Ghanem said he did not yet know when Blair's visit would take place, but hoped it would be soon. "I hope that he will be coming -- the sooner, the better -- he will be most welcome here," he said. "I think he will enjoy coming to Libya and he will find friends here."

[A BBC News report on the same matter can be read here.]

The official case is now so thin that only concoctions can save it

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog four years ago on this date:

Ex-minister says Gadhafi ordered Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a news agency report from Associated Press. It reads in part:]

Swedish tabloid Expressen says Libya's ex-justice minister claims Moammar Gadhafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988.

Expressen on Wednesday quoted Mustafa Abdel-Jalil as telling their correspondent in Libya that "I have proof that Gadhafi gave the order about Lockerbie." He didn't describe the proof.

Abdel-Jalil stepped down as justice minister to protest the violence against anti-government demonstrations.

He told Expressen Gadhafi gave the order to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.

"To hide it, he (Gadhafi) did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland," Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying. (...)

Expressen spokeswoman Alexandra Forslund said its reporter, Kassem Hamade, interviewed the ex-justice minister at "a local parliament in a large city in Libya." She didn't want to name the city, citing security concerns. (...)

Bob Monetti, of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Richard was killed in the bombing, said he's glad to hear a former official say what's been clear to him all along. He said officials and the media, especially in the UK, have been denying that.

"Ever since the trial, which was held in a totally obscure location in Holland and was covered by nobody, there's been a drumbeat in the UK about how this is a trumped up thing and Libya had nothing to do with it," he said. "If you went to the trial, there was no question about who did it and why, and who ordered it."

Monetti said he's been following coverage of the Libyan uprising closely.

"I can't wait until we see pictures of Gadhafi hanging by his heels," he said.

[A news agency report from The Press Association contains the following:]

The Scottish Government says it "never doubted" the safety of the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber following reports that Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gaddafi ordered the attack. (...)

A Swedish newspaper reported that Col Gaddafi had personally ordered the bombing.

The Expressen said Libya's former justice secretary, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, told its correspondent in Libya: "I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie.

"To hide it, he did everything in his power to get Megrahi back from Scotland." (...)

But the Scottish Government, which has repeatedly said Megrahi was only freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal prostate cancer, said: "Ministers have never doubted the safety of the conviction."

[On this blog yesterday, the following was posted:]

What’s the betting that, sometime in the next few weeks, the following happens:

1. In the burned out ruins of a Libyan government building, someone finds definitive documentary ‘proof’ that Libya and Megrahi were responsible for Lockerbie, and/or

2. A Libyan official reveals, ‘we did it’.

The official case is now so thin that only such concoctions can save it (although it’s also crossed my mind that a prisoner will come forward who says ‘Megrahi confessed to me' – another hallmark of paper-thin cases).

[RB: Further blogposts relating to the Abdel-Jalil statement can be read here.]

"No reasonable basis in trial court's judgment for its conclusion..."

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009:

Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence

[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]

A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.

The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.

The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)

Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.

Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.

Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.

Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.

But Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.

Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”

Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.

Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.

Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.

In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.

The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)

Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.

In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed. 

Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.

New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.

Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. 

The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.

The Lockerbie Bomber play in Larbert

[The following is excerpted from an article published today on the website of The Falkirk Herald:]

Two local theatre groups will go head to head when Larbert’s Dobbie Hall [Main Street, Larbert FK5 4BL] hosts a popular drama festival this weekend.

On Sunday evening, the Falkirk District round of the Scottish Community Drama Association’s one-act play festival features plays from two talented local clubs (...)

Closing the festival are Tryst Theatre with The Lockerbie Bomber by Larbert writer Kenneth N Ross.

It’s an emotional and soul-searching drama about the Lockerbie disaster which claimed 270 lives when a jumbo jet crashed in the Scottish town in 1988.

The actors are Carol Clark, Jim Allan, Alan Clark, Rhona Law, Brian Paterson and Craig Murray. (...)

The evening starts at 7.30pm on Sunday [22 February]. Tickets £7 (concessions £4) are available at the door or by telephoning (01324) 624449.

[Here is a review of the play from May 2012.]

D & G Chief Constable talks about 1988 Lockerbie disaster

[What follows is taken from a report published today on the website of The Ellon Times:]

President [of Ellon Probus Club] Norman Davidson then introduced guest speaker George Esson CBE, a North-east ‘loon’ from Alford, who carved out a highly successful career in the police service.

From being a lowly beat policeman in Aberdeen, George rose to the level of chief constable for Dumfries and Galloway.

It was during his spell in charge at Dumfries that the Pan Am 103 disaster occurred over Lockerbie on December 22, 1988, resulting in the deaths of 259 passengers and 11 local residents.

As this incident occurred in the Dumfries and Galloway policing area, George was automatically in charge of all investigations into the crash cause.

Pan Am 103 had been en route from Frankfurt via London to Detroit and sabotage was suspected.

Detailed investigations and intensive liaison were carried out involving MI5, FBI and CIA and their German equivalents.

Painstaking forensic examination of everything found within many miles of the crash site was carried out and its origin traced.

Eventually sufficient evidence was gathered to allow the procurator fiscal to proceed with a prosecution.

All evidence pointed to the involvement of Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. [RB: “All evidence”? In mid-1990 reputable newspapers in the UK and the USA ran reports quoting sources within the investigation disclosing who the culprits were -- and it wasn’t Libya or Megrahi.]

At a specially-convened Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001, all three sitting judges found Megrahi guilty of murder.

Subsequently, at an appeal hearing in 2002 five further law court judges unanimously also found him guilty. [RB: This old canard again. Here is the true position: "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."]

The Pan Am investigation is subject to continued speculation on Megrahi’s involvement.

Prior to his retirement, George was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal (QPM) for his distinguished service in the police force.

Neither Libya nor Libyans were involved in this event

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2011:

Carlos the Jackal on Lockerbie and Libya

[What follows is from a website that I have just discovered. It bears to be a section from Carlos the Jackal's second book It Is Carlos's Turn to Talk.]

You’ll remember (...) nearly all the Western media stormed over how Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was supposedly the murderer of nearly 300 people in the plane crash after a "terrorist" bomb attack over Lockerbie town in Scotland on December 21, 1988, could be set free. And, they protested about his being saluted in his own country as a hero who they thought was a murderer.

Firstly, I would like to say that Libyan government does not have any connection with this event. Neither Libya nor Libyans were involved in this event from the beginning to the end. It is not a groundless defense, it is the definite truth. Indeed, neither Qaddafi likes me nor I like him. Because he was not honest and supportive to me. Do not think that I’m on the side of Libya as a favor. I'm just trying to express the truth for me. I’m on the side of Libya on this issue since all the Libyan people were attacked under the pretext of Lockerbie with prejudice.

First of all, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was imprisoned as the responsible one for this event was the security chief of Tripoli Airport. And, from diplomats to official representatives whoever came to Libya know him like I saw him many times when I was coming to or leaving Libya because he was the one organizing security there.

Similarly, al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah who was tried together with al-Megrahi in [the Netherlands] did not have any connection with this event. He was a station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport, Malta. After the judicial process, they let him go back to Libya as his innocence was proved.

But, why was Abdelbaset al-Megrahi given a hero’s welcome when he landed in Libya? He was welcomed like that because he is really a hero, a real hero!

This can be asked: Why did Libya admit that they had responsibility for this event? They did so since they noticed that FBI's evidence that was just "invented" and full of nonsensical things would probably be a pretext for an American attack against Libya. In order to stop this, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi accepted to be tried in [the Netherlands] for of a crime he had never committed. He sacrificed all his life for the sake of Libya, for the good of Ummah and for this duty given by Libyan government. I think, he is a person to be respected by Ummah for his unique bravery. Libya’s being a tribal state cannot overshadow the greatness of this self-sacrifice. You know, since he was seriously ill, he was sent to his country. Although this can be seen as the primary reason for setting him free, another reason behind his release is that Scottish Criminal Justice had new evidence that Libyans were not connected with the bombs used in the attack.

Did the USA not know who and which countries actually organized this operation? Of course, they did. They knew that Libya or Libyans were not responsible, and they also knew the countries behind the attack, but America was afraid of confronting and fighting them. Therefore, they tried to respond by assailing and accusing Libya. At last, Libya got rid of them by sacrificing those heroes and unfortunately by accepting to pay a huge amount of compensation, that is, three billion dollars.

The Scottish lawyer Eddie McKechnie who had defended these Libyans in [the Netherlands] is my lawyer as well. In 2003, he came from Scotland only to visit me in prison. I told him about everything I knew about this issue. We talked from morning till evening and I sent my greetings to his Libyan clients thanks to him.

To underline this issue again, I swear that Libya is not responsible for this attack. Besides, although the USA knew this truth better than anybody, they made up a story and laid the blame at Libya’s door. Because, it was against their interests to talk about the truth. Why? Because, there were high-ranking intelligence officers from the CIA station in the Middle East on that plane, and they all died. Those agents were manipulating some drug smugglers and having covert relationships with them for intelligence and other operations. It was a complicated issue for America which could not be explained. What’s more, the USA was one of the responsible ones of the incident. They were used by the men who they had wanted to make use of and were trapped due to their foolishness. But I want to say something, if Libya can press for the issue in a clever way, not only will the crimes of the USA come to the fore, but also Libya will be able to get back the three billion dollars paid as compensation. This crime of the USA is not only against Libya, but also against all of humanity. It is an unheard-of justice scandal and a political complot organized shamelessly. That’s what I can say about this issue.

Destroying Libya

[What follows is excerpted from this week’s syndicated column by US political columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall:]

Barack Obama destroyed Libya.

What he did to Libya is as bad as what Bush did to Iraq and Afghanistan. He doesn’t deserve a historical pass.

When Obama took office in 2009, Libya was under the clutches of longtime dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. But things were looking up.

Bush and Gaddafi had cut a deal to lift Western trade sanctions in exchange for Libya acknowledging and paying restitution for its role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In a rare triumph for Bush, Libya also agreed to give up its nuclear weapons research program. Libyan and Western analysts anticipated that Gaddafi’s dictatorship would be forced to accept liberal reforms, perhaps even free elections and rival political parties, in order to attract Western investment.

Libya in 2009 was prosperous. As citizens of a major oil- and natural gas-exporting nation, Libyans enjoyed high salaries, low living expenses, generous social benefits, not to mention law and order. It seems like a mirage today.

Looking back, many Libyans miss their former tyrant. “Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa,” notes Garikai Chengu of the Du Bois Institute for African Research at Harvard University. “However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa’s most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.”

As a dictator, Gaddafi was guilty of horrendous human rights abuses. But life was better then than now. Women enjoyed more rights in Libya than in any other Arab country, particularly after the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq. By regional standards, Libya was a relatively sweet place to live. (...)

Obama threw Gaddafi, whose regime was secular and by all accounts had been cooperative and held up his end of the deals with US, under the bus.

American forces jammed Libyan military communications. The US fired missiles to intercept Libyan missiles fired at rebel targets. The US led numerous airstrikes against units loyal to Gaddafi. US intervention turned the tide in favor of the Benghazi-based rebels.

In October 2011, one of Obama’s killer robot drones participated in Gaddafi’s assassination. Game over.

Before invading Iraq, then Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Bush about his “Pottery Barn rule“: if you break it, you own it.

Obama has broken the hell out of Libya.

Pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry

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

A deep shadow

[This is the headline over my most recent column in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Despite willingness expressed by both the Scottish and UK Governments to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, neither has initiated one, and each appear to expect the other to do so. Professor Robert Black QC says the complicated comedy of manners and faux fidelity hides the knowledge of both that the actings of their legal advisers are fatally compromised.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal because he thought it would maximise his chances of being allowed home to Libya to die (by keeping open the possibility of prisoner transfer). In fact, what Kenny MacAskill did was to release him on compassionate grounds, a procedure which, unlike prisoner transfer, does not require that there be no live legal proceedings. But Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that this was the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would jump.

The abandonment of the appeal did not signify that he now accepted the justness of his conviction. Far from it. In the statement released on his departure he said: “I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair. In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description. I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable. To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.”

So the concerns about the conviction felt by many, including the SCCRC, remain. Until those concerns are officially addressed a deep shadow will hover over the Scottish criminal justice system, both domestically and internationally. It is blindingly obvious that the shadow can now best be removed by the establishment of an independent inquiry into the whole circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster.

The Scottish Government says that it favours an inquiry, but that it should be set up by the UK Government. The UK Government says that since all the legal proceedings relating to Lockerbie were under Scottish jurisdiction, any inquiry must be a matter for the Scottish Government. It is difficult to disagree with the following passage from an editorial in The Herald on 25 October 2009: “Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because 'that’s the way our system works', while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened 'by those with required powers'. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.”

If neither government is opposed to an inquiry, but only at odds about who should convene it, why has the problem not been resolved (as it was in relation to Stockline) by setting up a joint inquiry under section 32 of the Inquiries Act 2005? Could the answer be the legal advice that both governments are receiving?

If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the Scottish Government, from whom would the Scottish Ministers seek advice on the legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal legal adviser, the Lord Advocate. If such an inquiry were to be set up, one of the issues at the forefront of its terms of reference would have to be the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the Lockerbie trial. Who is the head of the Scottish prosecution system? The Lord Advocate, of course.

If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the UK Government, from whom would UK Ministers seek advice on the Scottish legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal Scottish legal adviser, the Advocate General for Scotland. Who was it who in the recent appeal fought valiantly and successfully to keep documents out of the hands of Megrahi’s legal team? The Advocate General for Scotland, of course.

Just the teensiest suspicion of a conflict of interest here, perhaps?

[RB: And five years later the conflicts of interest continue.]