The true story of Lockerbie remains untold

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Alan Taylor published in today’s edition of The National:]

Megrahi served little more than eight years before he was sent back to Libya diagnosed with terminal cancer. The person solely responsible for a decision that angered and bemused many people – not least the majority of the victims’ families – was Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s then Justice Secretary. This book is his attempt to explain how he came to that decision, and to justify it. It makes for painful, disturbing and difficult reading. For if, as MacAskill still appears to believe is the case, Megrahi was instrumental in the Lockerbie bombing, and the verdict was safe, then the rationale for treating him with a compassion alien to his actions is hard to swallow. (...)

All of which, of course, presumes that Megrahi was culpable. Much of the first half of MacAskill’s book is devoted to a reprise of events that will yield little new to those familiar with the Lockerbie saga. Drawing on a limited number of sources, mainly the Scottish Government’s in-house website, and airily dismissing the work of authors such as John Ashton, who was a member of the legal team representing Megrahi, the former Justice Secretary would have us believe that his faith in the Scottish judiciary is unshaken. “I accept the conviction and sentence imposed,” he said in the course of announcing his decision to release Megrahi.

Elsewhere, however, he acknowledges that had the crucial evidence of Tony Gauci –the Maltese shopkeeper who said he sold Megrahi the clothes that were found among the debris from the Pan Am plane – been dismissed from the prosecution case it “would have resulted in an acquittal”.

This, then, is where one finds MacAskill’s argument unpersuasive. There is no doubt that Gauci – described by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, a former Lord Advocate, as “not quite the full shilling” and “an apple short of a picnic” – was a poor and unreliable witness. For instance, when first asked to detail what Megrahi looked like he described someone who was quite different from the police’s chief suspect. He also had trouble fixing on a date on which Megrahi had visited his shop. Apparently, Megrahi paid for his purchases in cash which Gauci said cost £76.50 which, had there been a receipt, would have saved a lot of head-scratching. Ultimately, he identified Megrahi after he was shown photographs of him by the police. Was he influenced by the fact that he’d previously seen pictures of him in a magazine? Or did the promise of a $2m reward help jog his memory? The depressing fact is that after 28 years, the true story of Lockerbie remains untold.

[Today’s edition of The Herald runs a report that reads in part:]

In Mr MacAskill's book, The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, which is due to be released on Thursday, he reveals details of a classified document which implicates the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) in the Lockerbie bombing carried out on December 21, 1988.

The document was the subject of a legal wrangle during Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi second appeal against conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the High Court on the basis that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.

That conclusion was reached after the SCCRC team that investigated Megrahi’s conviction discovered the existence of the document during their four-year probe which concluded in 2007.

Their 800-page report explains that their investigative team was allowed to access the document in Dumfries police station but they were prevented from removing the notes they made on it and the document itself.

The SCCRC was only able to access the document after signing up to a special agreement not to divulge the contents and was told by the Crown that “a conclusion was reached that the documents did not require to be disclosed in terms of the Crown’s obligations”.

When Megrahi’s defence team pushed for the recovery of the information the Lord Advocate took the view that it would be appropriate to disclose the document.

However, the Advocate General, representing the UK Government, produced a public interest immunity (PII) certificate signed by then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, which blocked the disclosure on the grounds of national security.

A spokeswoman for the FCO has confirmed that “the [PII] certificate is still active” and “if the material protected by the certificate were disclosed, it might constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act”.

Willie Rennie [leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament] said: “Kenny MacAskill should be investigated by the authorities.

“His cavalier approach to justice has left many casualties in its wake. He should not be profiting from any breach of the Official Secrets Act.”

Scottish Conservative shadow cabinet secretary for justice, Douglas Ross, added: “Questions need answered as to whether he has broken the Official Secrets Act.”

A spokesman for the Foreign Office declined to offer further comment yesterday but it is understood officials are seeking legal advice.

Victoria Gilder, publicity director at Biteback, the publisher of Mr MacAskill’s book said the former justice minister “can’t comment”.

'Spy' dropped from Lockerbie trial panel

[This is the headline over a report (based on Reuters news agency material) that was published on the South African Independent Online website on this date in 2000. It reads as follows:]

An expert panel that advises the press on the trial of two Libyans accused of the 1988 Lockerbie aircraft bombing dropped one of its members on Tuesday following reports that he was a British intelligence agent.

The Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit, set up by Glasgow University's School of Law to give independent, impartial information on the legal dimensions of the trial, asked former diplomat Professor Andrew Fulton to stand down.

"The unit does not have the knowledge to comment on claims of (Fulton's) involvement with the security services," said Glasgow University. "However ... while Professor Fulton continues to attract media attention, the effectiveness of the work of the unit is likely to be jeopardised."

"In these circumstances, therefore, Professor Fulton is being asked to stand down from the group."

Fulton joined the panel in 1999 upon retiring from the Foreign Office after 31 years. British media reports said he was formerly a high-ranking officer of MI6, the foreign intelligence arm of British security, and could not give unbiased information about people Britain has accused of being "terrorists".

The panel had given hundreds of briefings on the trial of Libyans Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa, now on trial for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland and deaths of 270 people.

The trial is being held in Camp Zeist in the neutral Netherlands under Scottish law.

On Monday, the Scottish Daily Record cited Fulton, who co-ordinates the Lockerbie project and was a top official at the British Embassy in Washington before his retirement, as saying: "Whatever my diplomatic past, I am now part of this unit. We talk to the press strictly on legal aspects of the trial. There is no hidden agenda.

"Lockerbie never came up in my diplomatic career. I knew little about it until I came to Glasgow. If I did have an intelligence background, it would not be something I could give a straight answer to."

Media reports suggested Fulton was recruited to MI6 while completing a law degree at Glasgow University.

MacAskill cites flaws in case against Megrahi

[This is the headline over a report published in today’s edition of The Sunday Times. The following are excerpts:]

Kenny MacAskill, the former justice minister, has cast fresh doubt on the strength of the crown case that led to the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, writes Jason Allardyce.

Although he remains convinced of the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, he says the case was based on circumstantial evidence and was “weak in many ways”.

Last week Dr Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, claimed that the official case against Megrahi was “falling to pieces”.

Swire’s comments came after this newspaper reported that MacAskill’s forthcoming book claims that clothes used to carry the bomb which brought down Pan Am Flight 103 “were acquired in Malta, though not by Megrahi”, before adding: “But if Megrahi didn’t buy the clothes, he was certainly involved”.

The testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci that Megrahi bought the clothes in his shop was considered important evidence in securing the conviction and some campaigners believe that the case would have collapsed without it.

MacAskill writes: “The problem was not with the system of law, but the case itself. It was circumstantial evidence and weak in many ways. However, there was evidence for the court to consider all the same.”

Noting that the court at Camp Zeist commented on the lack of evidence of the Samsonite suitcase carrying the bomb being placed on board an Air Malta flight before being routed onto the Pan Am jet, he adds: “It certainly seems that is where it started and that Megrahi was at the airport at the time with a pass that allowed him access. [RB: This is false: Megrahi did not have an airside pass. The co-accused, Lamin Fhimah, had retained his airside pass, but there was no evidence that he was at Luqa Airport on the day in question.]

“But, beyond that, there really is no evidence other than that he was there. It’s understandable how, once loaded at Malta, it would work its way through the system unchecked and with only cursory checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. But there is no direct evidence that Megrahi placed the bag on board.

“Even greater doubts are expressed regarding the identification of Megrahi by Tony Gauci. Again, the court itself expressed its own concerns but was prepared to put them aside, having been persuaded of what they saw as his general honesty and good intentions. However, beyond that, his identification is far from clear.”

MacAskill argues that the court was required to deduce that December 7 was the day of the purchase, a day when Gauci claimed it had been raining, in the face of evidence that cast “huge doubts due to the lack of apparent rain in Sliema” at that time.

“That does appear much more problematic,” writes MacAskill.

However, he adds: “It’s very easy to look at pieces of evidence in isolation and be critical, but those deciding must look at the case in its entirety. There may be aspects that cause concern but they need not be fatal.

“There may also be parts that can never be explained but, again, it need not always result in an acquittal,” he writes.

The Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, which considers miscarriages of justice, upheld a challenge to the reasonableness of the verdict on some grounds related to the evidence of Gauci and the clothes having been bought on December 7. (...)

The commission was worried about the apparent inconsistencies regarding the weather when Megrahi was said to have bought the clothes and about the initial identification parade, where evidence later came to light that Gauci had seen a photo of Megrahi in a magazine story linking him to the bombing.

MacAskill points out that the commission referred to other issues that challenged the credibility of Gauci’s testimony that had not been put before the courts, such as evidence that he had been paid by the US authorities for his testimony, with Gauci receiving $2m (£1.37m) and his brother $1m.

[A further article in the same newspaper is headlined Clinton role questioned in Lockerbie bomber release. In it Kenny MacAskill says (a) that Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, was “simply going through the motions” when she voiced concerns about the release of Megrahi; and (b) that Megrahi’s survival for considerably longer than expected was due to his being treated in Libya with Abiraterone, a drug not then available on the NHS in Scotland, and that being returned to his family gave him the will to live.]

MacAskill may have breached Official Secrets Act over Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads in part:]

Former justice minister Kenny MacAskill has revealed details of highly classified secret document which casts serious doubt on the safety of the conviction of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has said that the revelation, which will appear in MacAskill's new book about the downing of Pan Am flight 103, 'might' constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

It is understood the FCO only became aware that top secret details were disclosed in MacAskill’s book when the Sunday Herald contacted the UK government about the revelations. Officials are now believed to be seeking legal advice.

The person who discloses information is guilty of an offence if they do so “without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure”.

In his book, The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, which is due to be released on Thursday, MacAskill reveals details of a secret document which implicates the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) in the Lockerbie bombing carried out on December 21 1988.

The PFLP-GC were the original suspects in the investigation into the biggest terrorist atrocity ever to have been committed in mainland Britain, which claimed the lives of 270 people, including 11 Lockerbie residents.

However, by 1991 police and prosecutors were entirely focused on Libya and in 2001 Megrahi – who was a former Libyan intelligence officer - was convicted of the bombing and sentenced to life in prison. (...)

The significance of the document which implicates the PFLP-GC is played down by MacAskill in his book but it does suggest others may have been involved in the bombing.

The details of the document are covered by a strict Whitehall gagging order. The document in question was the subject of a legal wrangle during Megrahi’s second appeal against conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the High Court on the basis that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.

That conclusion was reached after the SCCRC team that investigated Megrahi's conviction discovered the existence of the document during their four-year probe which concluded in 2007.

Their 800-page report explains that their investigative team were allowed to access the document in Dumfries police station but they were prevented from removing the notes they made on it and the document itself.

The SCCRC was only able to access the document after signing up to a special agreement not to divulge the contents and was told by the Crown that “a conclusion was reached that the documents did not require to be disclosed in terms of the Crown's obligations”.

When Megrahi’s defence team pushed for the recovery of the information the Lord Advocate took the view that it would be appropriate to disclose the document.

However, the Advocate General, representing the UK government, produced a public interest immunity (PII) certificate signed by then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, which blocked the disclosure on the grounds of national security.

A spokeswoman for the FCO confirmed that “the [PII] certificate is still active” and “if the material protected by the certificate were disclosed, it might constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act.”

She added: “It would be for the publisher of the book to seek their own legal advice about any legal risks they are running.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “This is a matter for the publisher to advise upon.”

In 2012 the UK Government went to great lengths to prevent our sister paper The Herald revealing details of the document.

It threatened legal action to stop publication and asked the paper to sign up to a court-approved gagging order.

At that time only the Crown, UK Government and SCCRC team knew the contents of the closely guarded document.

The Herald did publish some details which implicated the PFLP-GC, and revealed that the document originated in Jordan.

MacAskill, however, has gone much further, naming key individuals who were party to the contents of the document, and the potential security ramifications of its release into the public domain.

The Sunday Herald has chosen - after consultation with our lawyers - not to publish the full details of the document despite knowing its contents.

Co-founder of campaigning organisation Lockerbie Truth, Dr Jim Swire, 80, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions about the potential involvement of the PFLP-GC.

He said: “It’s exactly what the relatives of the victims have thought for many years. I hope that the book is published without interference. It may lead us to find ways of breaking through the refusal to look again at the evidence used to convict Megrahi.

“This sort of thing - pointing to official knowledge of the real perpetrators - could be absolutely crucial.”

A Crown Office spokesman said: “The Crown has had no involvement in the publication of the former Cabinet Secretary’s book and cannot therefore comment on its content ahead of publication.

“The suggestion that the PFLP-GC was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing was fully considered by the trial court following the incrimination of this terrorist group by Megrahi during his trial and does nothing to undermine the Crown's case that Megrahi acted with others in the bombing of flight Pan Am 103. (...)”

When asked about the possible breach of the PII certificate, Victoria Gilder, Publicity Director at Biteback, the publisher of MacAskill’s book, said: “Sorry, I can’t comment on that because I don’t know anything about it.

“The book is embargoed until next week…you’re not supposed to run anything. It’s embargoed until Monday.”

Last night a Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the government department has not seen a copy of the book, but added: “We take the protection of material covered by Public Interest Immunity certificates extremely seriously.”

Megrahi case "example of gross prosecutorial misconduct"

[The following are a few extracts from media reports on this date in 2012, the day after Abdelbaset Megrahi’s death and the day of his funeral:]

Independent Online (South Africa):

The death of the only person convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people should not prevent a public inquiry into his trial, Britain’s press said on Monday.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi died on Sunday, almost three years after the Scottish government freed him from jail on compassionate grounds after his prostate cancer diagnosis.

Megrahi was found guilty of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground.

Britain’s newspapers believe that his initial conviction by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands in 2001 was flawed and called for an official probe.

“With so many loose ends remaining and so many questions about the original trial unresolved, the Scottish government should agree to a public inquiry into the tragedy,” said the left-leaning Independent’s editorial.

“Megrahi’s death is no reason to stop trying to get to the truth,” the newspaper added. (...)

The Guardian said Megrahi’s death removed a “running sore in relations between London and Washington” but was doubtful it would help answer questions about the initial verdict.

“One might assume that the truth about the bombing might finally emerge,” said its editorial. “But that hope could be premature.”

The liberal broadsheet said the task of rebuilding Libya after the death of president Muammar Gaddafi could hold up attempts to review any new evidence.

“Megrahi outlived his leader by seven months, but both may well have taken the truth of what happened to their grave,” it added.

“But if ever a crime of this magnitude warranted an independent review, it is this.”

The Herald:

Dr [Jim] Swire told The Herald: "Our lawyers are saying we have an absolute right to know who killed our loved ones and why they were not protected." (...)

Dr Swire added: "This might mean pushing for a judicial review of the UK Government's decision not to grant an independent inquiry.

"The alternative right now is for Alex Salmond to get his act together and grant an independent inquiry in Scotland.

"I am not in the mood to forgo the right to know who murdered my daughter and who knew the airport was broken into 16 hours before and decided not to do anything about it.

"I will have to take further advice on whether I could pursue this through the SCCRC. I think the next move lies with the Megrahi family."

Professor Robert Black QC – the architect of Megrahi's trial, said ministers could be persuaded to hold an independent inquiry in Scotland, or a relative of Megrahi may re-apply to the SCCRC and push for a new appeal.

Ministers' continued refusal to hold a public inquiry could be challenged as a breach of article 8, the right to a family life.

Niall McCluskey, an advocate and expert in human rights, said: "The court could declare the Government was in some way in breach of the petitioner's human rights. Judicial review is a mechanism by which they could seek to have the decision of the Government not to hold an inquiry challenged."

John Ashton, a former member of Megrahi's defence team and the author of his official biography, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, said: "He has suffered a very painful death and he has gone to his grave with the conviction hanging over him.

"I am convinced that sooner or later the conviction will be overturned."

ITV News:

Abdelbasset al Megrahi is being buried today. (...)

But the aftershocks from his release and death rumble on, because although Abdelbasset Al Megrahi was convicted of mass murder, no-one believes his conviction to be entirely satisfactory. Many believe Libya had nothing to do with the attack. Many fingers point to Iran and its desire to avenge the shooting down of an Iran passenger plane by an American warship a year before Pan Am 103 was bombed. (...)

Fragments of a timer and clothing, and a witness in Malta tied him to the bomb.

He was convicted after an extraordinary trial in the Netherlands but, ever since, British relatives of the dead have said they believe he was not responsible.

Megrahi always protested his innocence and began campaigning to clear his name as soon as he got to Libya.

His death does not end the controversy.

Consortium News:

From the Now-They-Tell-Us department comes The New York Times obit of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted by a special Scottish court for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. After Megrahi’s death from cancer was announced on Sunday, the Times finally acknowledged that his guilt was in serious doubt.

Last year, when the Times and other major US news outlets were manufacturing public consent for a new war against another Middle East “bad guy,” ie Muammar Gaddafi, Megrahi’s guilt was treated as flat fact. Indeed, citation of the Lockerbie bombing became the debate closer, effectively silencing anyone who raised questions about US involvement in another war for “regime change.” (...)

Gaddafi’s eventual defeat, capture and grisly murder brought no fresh doubts about the certainty of the guilt of Megrahi, who was simply called the “Lockerbie bomber.” Few eyebrows were raised even when British authorities released Libya’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa after asking him some Lockerbie questions.

Scotland Yard also apparently failed to notice the dog not barking when the new pro-Western Libyan government took power and released no confirmation that Gaddafi’s government indeed had sponsored the 1988 attack. After Gaddafi’s overthrow and death, the Lockerbie issue just disappeared from the news.

So, readers of The New York Times’ obituary page might have been surprised Monday if they read deep into Megrahi’s obit and discovered this summary of the case:

“The enigmatic Mr Megrahi had been the central figure of the case for decades, reviled as a terrorist but defended by many Libyans, and even some world leaders, as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence.”

If you read even further, you would find this more detailed examination of the evidence:

“Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.

“After a three-year investigation, Mr Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan airline station manager in Malta, were indicted on mass murder charges in 1991. Libya refused to extradite them, and the United Nations imposed eight years of sanctions that cost Libya $30 billion.  …

“Negotiations led by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa produced a compromise in 1999: the suspects’ surrender, and a trial by Scottish judges in the Netherlands.

“The trial lasted 85 days. None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays.

“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert.

“Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in Mr Fhimah’s desk in Malta, that Mr Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.

“On Jan 31, 2001, the three-judge court found Mr Megrahi guilty but acquitted Mr Fhimah. The court called the case circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable, but concluded that ‘there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt’ of Mr Megrahi.

“Much of the evidence was later challenged. It emerged that Mr Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.

“Investigators said Mr Bollier, whom even the court called ‘untruthful and unreliable,’ had changed his story repeatedly after taking money from Libya, and might have gone to Tripoli just before the attack to fit a timer and bomb into the cassette recorder. The implication that he was a conspirator was never pursued.

“In 2007, Mr Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.

“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.

“Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by Mr Mandela. Many legal experts and investigative journalists challenged the evidence, calling Mr Megrahi a scapegoat for a Libyan government long identified with terrorism. While denying involvement, Libya paid $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in 2003 in a bid to end years of diplomatic isolation.”

In other words, the case against Megrahi looks to have been an example of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane, an unlikely route for a terrorist attack and made even more dubious by the absence of any evidence of an unaccompanied bag being put on those flights).

Nicola Sturgeon has a duty to set up an immediate inquiry

This is the heading over an item posted today on Lockerbietruth.com, the website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph. It reads as follows:]

Former Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill, in his book The Lockerbie Bombing (Biteback), writes:

"Clothes in the suitcase containing the bomb were acquired in Malta, though not by Megrahi."

This totally contradicts the written verdict of the Lockerbie trial judges regarding the identification evidence given by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci:

"[88] A major factor in the case against [Baset al-Megrahi] is the identification evidence of [Maltese shopkeeper] Mr Gauci... We accept the reliability of Mr Gauci on this matter."

If MacAskill is correct and Megrahi did not purchase the clothes from Tony Gauci's shop in Malta, then how could Gauci have seen him and recognized him from photographs and in a police identity parade, and in the courtroom?

As Justice Minister MacAskill was privy to all security reports and the entire trial evidence. He worked closely with the office of the Lord Advocate. [RB: Mr MacAskill, of course, did not become Cabinet Secretary for Justice until long after the Zeist trial and first appeal. However, he was in office when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission delivered its report on the Megrahi case and during the appeal that followed (and which was abandoned, in murky circumstances, prior to his repatriation).]

If he knows of evidence indicating that Megrahi was not the person who purchased clothes from Gauci's shop, then he has a legal and moral duty to say what it is.

If there is such evidence, then the entire testimony of the only identification witness in the Lockerbie trial, Tony Gauci, is invalid, and a major miscarriage of justice has occurred.

MacAskill's moral and legal duty, and that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, extends not only to those bereaved relativeswho believe Megrahi to be innocent, but to all bereaved Lockerbie relatives in America and elsewhere.

Nicola Sturgeon must grasp the nettle in this matter and instigate an urgent and immediate inquiry.