Blair, Gaddafi, Megrahi

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

Tony Blair and Colonel Gadaffi discussed al-Megrahi

Tony Blair discussed with Colonel Gadaffi how best to “find a way through" for the jailed Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi after BP formally signed an exploration deal in 2007, according to Libya’s Europe minister.

In an interview with The Sunday Times in Tripoli yesterday, Abdulati al-Obeidi, the minister, said that al-Megrahi had been on the agenda during Blair’s visit that year.

“They (Blair and Gadaffi) discussed possible ways on how legally to bring al-Megrahi to Libya, whether through British or international laws or the Scottish system,” the minister said.

“At that time they were merely exchanging ideas. The idea was discussed as a title. Everyone was looking for a relationship to continue and prosper into the future and to find a way out for Abdul Baset, but nothing was agreed." (...)

The minister, Libya’s longest-serving politican, going back since 1968, said he had been asked by his government to become involved in the negotiations over al-Megrahi’s release following the prisoner’s cancer diagnosis.

It was he who first conveyed Libya’s concerns to Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister at the time, about the possible consequences should al-Megrahi die in prison.

“I told Rammell and then (Ivan) Lewis, his successor, that al-Megrahi was very sick with cancer and that if he died in prison it would be disastrous in general, not just with regards to trade issues, but more importantly with public opinion, as people here and in the Middle East believed he was innocent, a hero.

“If he had died in prison they would also have believed that his illness was brought about intentionally and this would have been bad.”

He said he had conveyed the same message to Scottish officials.

It was then that Rammell had told him that neither Gordon Brown, the prime minister, nor David Miliband, the foreign secretary, wanted al-Megrahi to die in prison.

Legal experts were hired to explore ways in which to seek his freedom and they were made aware of possible release on compassionate grounds as well as under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

The minister said al-Megrahi had insisted on dropping his appeal against conviction for the Lockerbie bombing in order to give both options a better chance.

“He was a sick man, a dying man who wanted to return home, reunite with his family and see them before he died,” he said. Al-Megrahi had declared when he made his decision: “I want to die among my family.”

[The above are excerpts from an article in The Sunday Times.]

Further information about Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, a highly significant figure in the Lockerbie saga, is to be found in blogposts here. My take on the “deal in the desert” can be read here.

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".]

MacAskill under pressure over Megrahi appeal claim

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

Scotland's Justice Secretary is under pressure to explain claims he advised the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to drop his appeal against conviction to smooth the way for his compassionate release.

The allegation levelled against Kenny MacAskill – and denied by the Scottish Government – is contained in a new book, entitled Megrahi: You Are My Jury, in which Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi says he was "the innocent victim of dirty politics, a flawed investigation and judicial folly". It also makes claims about new evidence it says could have cleared the Libyan, but which the Crown Office failed to disclose to the defence.

Mr MacAskill is claimed to have made the offer to Megrahi through a Libyan official.

Scottish LibDem leader Willie Rennie called for Mr MacAskill and Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland to make a statement to Holyrood. He said: "Allegations of suppression of evidence and a Greenock Prison release deal between the Justice Secretary and Megrahi make it essential for a statement to be made to Parliament - it is important the Justice Secretary answers serious questions."

Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "This is a staggering claim and implies the Scottish Justice Minister was offering legal advice to help a convicted killer escape prison."

Scottish Labour's justice spokesman, Lewis Macdonald, said Mr MacAskill may have "knowingly misled Parliament".

The new book details previously unseen evidence not disclosed to the defence, including forensics reports that suggest the fragment of circuit board found in the Lockerbie debris did not match those sold to the Libyans – as per the prosecution case at trial.

The book claims that the metal content did not match – but reports referring to this were not shared with the defence until 2009.

Megrahi dropped his appeal shortly before Mr MacAskill said he would be released on "compassionate grounds" on August 20, 2009. The book states that Mr MacAskill met Libyan officials, including Foreign Minister Abdulati al Obeidi, 10 days earlier.

Megrahi claimed: "After the meeting, the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private.

"Once the others had withdrawn, he stated that MacAskill gave him to understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal.

"He said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me clear.

"I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so."

Mr MacAskill has categorically denied the claim. A Scottish Government spokesman branded the book, as "third-hand hearsay".

The spokesman added: "These claims are wrong – and officials were present at all meetings the Justice Secretary had on this matter at all times. The minutes of this meeting and indeed all other meetings, including with Mr Megrahi in Greenock Prison, were published by the Scottish Government and have been in the public domain since September 2009.

"We can say categorically that neither did the Scottish Government have any involvement of any kind in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal, or indeed any interest in it. That was entirely a matter for Mr Megrahi and his legal team."

The Crown Office said the decision was taken by Megrahi and his lawyers.

The book's author, John Ashton, who spent three years as a researcher with Megrahi's legal team, described the Crown's failure to disclose key information as a "scandal".

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial, said the book appeared to have "put the final nail in the coffin of the conviction."

Prime Minister David Cameron described the book as "an insult to the families of the 270 people who were murdered".

[In today's edition of the Daily Express there is another report on this issue.]

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.']

Why Megrahi dropped the appeal

[This is the heading over a section of an article by Lucy Adams that was published in The Herald on the occasion of the publication of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury. It reads as follows:]

CONTEXT: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had two possible routes out of Greenock jail in August 2009: a prisoner transfer application for which he first had to drop his appeal, or compassionate release because of his prostate cancer. The latter route did not demand that he drop his appeal, in contrast to the former. In the event, he ended his appeal, yet the PTA was turned down, and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill instead granted compassionate release. The chain of actions has always been a mystery, leaving those who believe in Megrahi’s guilt to see his decision as confirmation of their views. Why would an innocent man not pursue an appeal against conviction that he had waited years to begin? Now, for the first time, Megrahi claims that he was pressured to drop the appeal by Mr MacAskill personally through diplomatic channels.

EXTRACT: "On 10 August [2009] MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister [Abdel Ati] Al-Obeidi. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day time limit for considering the prisoner transfer application had passed and, although I had some vocal public supporters, MacAskill was coming under considerable pressure to reject both applications. After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal. He [MacAskill] said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me to be clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT:  Mr MacAskill, who was not contacted in advance of today's book publication, has always said he could not interfere in the judicial process. If Megrahi's version of events is true, it will prove very damaging to the minister, who has repeatedly distanced himself from any appeal which, if it had gone ahead, could have been a massive embarrassment to the Scottish legal system. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had already found six grounds on which Megrahi’s conviction was potentially unsafe.

Verdicts due in Tripoli trial of Gaddafi-era officials

Verdicts are expected today in the trial before a court in Tripoli of 37 Gaddafi-era officials. As well as Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, they include figures who played a significant part in the resolution of the Lockerbie impasse between Libya and the United Kingdom and United States, including Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, Mohammed Belqasim Zwai and Abuzed Omar Dorda. See Libya court to rule on Gaddafi's son Saif, former officials on July 28 and Court to rule on Gaddafi’s son in war-torn Libya.

BBC News reports that Saif and eight others have been sentenced to death: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33688391. None of the reports so far available (11.40 am) mentions Obeidi, Zwai and Dorda.

John Ashton's response to MacAskill statement

[What follows is an item posted on John Ashton’s website Megrahi: You are my Jury:]

Below is the statement made by Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Parliament this afternoon. My comments are in regular typeface at the end of each section.

Presiding Officer, can I once again put on record my sympathy for the relatives of all those lost in the Lockerbie atrocity. Whether it is American and the many other nationalities murdered in the air or Scots lost on the ground, the anguish remains with them constantly.  However, I have been asked by the opposition to make a statement to Parliament on this matter once again and am willing to do so. Both myself and this Government have always sought to be as open and transparent as we can be on all matters relating to Lockerbie. The need for this statement relates to claims made in a book written by a former researcher with Mr Al‑ Megrahi’s legal team.  

Presiding Officer, these claims are wrong. Minutes of meetings relating to Mr Al‑Megrahi were made at the time and have, except where permission was not given by other Governments, been published. A minute of my meeting with Libyan representatives is one of them.  Unlike the claims of recent days, these minutes are not hearsay but an accurate record made at the time.  

The minute of the relevant meeting, which took place on 10 August 2009, runs to just 1 page, at least a third of which is taken up by the list of attendees, and contains only five points. It cannot possibly be described as a full minute. You can view it here. The minister should state who produced the minute and whether they did so contemporaneously.

This minute has been in the public domain since September 2009.   It is quite clear and refutes the assertions made. 

The minute quite clearly refutes nothing. The alleged conversation in question would almost certainly not have been minuted.

These records are made by impartial civil servants to ensure there is a proper historic record of important discussions.  

See first comment above.

In addition to the minute kept, Presiding Officer, let me be quite clear. Scottish Government officials were present throughout my meeting with Mr Al-Obeidi.  

This does not preclude Mr MacAskill telling Mr Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if Abdelbaset dropped his appeal.

At no time did I or any other member of the Scottish government suggest to Mr Obeidi, to anyone connected with the Libyan government, or indeed to Mr Megrahi himself, that abandoning his appeal against conviction would in any way aid or affect his application for compassionate release. 

This is close to an absolute  denial of Obedi’s claim. However, according to Abdelbaset, Obedi said that MacAskill told him dropping the appeal would make it easier for him to grant compassionate release, not that it would aid or effect the application. This is a subtle difference, which may or may not be significant.

Let us remember what the two different processes were:  One process was an application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, made by the Gaddafi regime.  This required an end to any appeal proceedings before a transfer could happen. The second process was an application for compassionate release made by Mr Al-Megrahi himself, to which no such condition applied. We vigorously opposed the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, negotiated by the then UK Government with the Gaddafi regime, not least because it represented interference in the Scottish legal process. We wrote to the UK Government no fewer than eight times, between June 2007 and September 2008 setting out our opposition. I considered but rejected the application for Prisoner Transfer made in respect of him. And I granted a request for compassionate release submitted by him as I believed it adhered to the laws and values we hold in Scotland. I did so on the evidence before me from the Parole Board, the Prison Governor and Director of Health and Care in the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned .  

Really? Even though it would have dragged the reputation of the Crown Office through the mud?

I had no involvement in Mr Al-Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal against conviction – that was entirely a matter for him and his legal team. 

It was, in fact, a matter for Abdelbaset alone.

However Presiding Officer, one thing that is now clear from this new book as detailed on page 352, is that Mr Al‑Megrahi signed a provisional undertaking to abandon his appeal on March 23 2009. It is clear therefore he was considering dropping his appeal several months before either the two applications were put before me. At the time Mr Al-Megrahi had no way of knowing what my decision would be, either on compassionate release or on PTA.  However, he did know that a prisoner transfer application would have been refused had there been any ongoing legal proceedings. 

So what? Abdelbaset was desperate and was willing to do whatever it took to get home.

The author of the book John Ashton has himself accepted on BBC radio yesterday that the claim in the book is “hearsay”.     

This gives the misleading impression that my radio interview constituted a climbdown. In fact what I said in that interview is entirely consistent with the book, which makes clear that the claim was hearsay.

This Government has shown consistently we want to be as open and transparent as we can be on all aspects surrounding the Al-Megrahi case.  That is why we have brought forward the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) Bill to aid publication of the Statement of Reasons. As assertion by the author is that we, the Scottish Government, do not want the Statement of Reasons published.  Presiding Officer, nothing could be further from the truth.  This legislation, introduced by this Scottish Government, will enable the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information in cases they have investigated where a subsequent appeal has been abandoned. The legislation helps leave the Commission as the decision maker as to whether they publish their report on the Al-Megrahi case. Under the legislation, the Commission have to decide whether, in the whole circumstances, it is appropriate to disclose their Statement of Reasons.  There will be a range of factors the Commission will want to consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to disclose information. One key factor is likely to be how much of the Statement of the Reasons is already in the public domain.  With the publication of the book and television documentaries containing what apparently may well be significant material from the Statement of Reasons, this could be an important factor which the Commission may want to consider when they decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information they hold. As members know, we are limited within the powers of this Parliament as to how far our legislation can go in freeing up the Commission to disclose information. Data protection, which is a reserved matter, is a key obstacle to disclosure. I first spoke with Kenneth Clarke back in September 2010 on this issue.  And since our Bill was introduced, I have already written to him on three occasions on this issue. We are now faced with publication of material that is apparently from the Statement of Reasons. This means that the case for an exception to data protection rules is now overwhelming, but this is for the UK Government to act upon. That is why I have today written again to Kenneth Clarke urging that the UK Government now make a decision for an exception to be made to the normal statutory data protection rules for this unique case.  This will help ensure the wider public interest can be served and the road to publishing the Statement of Reasons is further cleared. Let no one be in any doubt. We want the Statement of Reasons published and are doing all that we can, within the powers of this Parliament, for this to happen.  

I am not qualified to comment in depth on the legal issues raised here, however, a number of better qualified commentators have observed that the government, despite what it claims, has littered the road to publication with more obstacles than are necessary.  It seems as if – much like Abdelbaset’s appeal – the whole process has been complicated in the hope that the delay will draw some of the sting from publication.

Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court and that is the only place where his guilt or innocence should be determined. We recognise that some have concerns regarding the wider issues relating to the atrocity.  The wide-ranging and international nature of the issues involved means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK Government. We remain ready to co-operate on an inquiry. 

Why not hold an inquiry into the devolved issue of the Crown Office’s handling of the case?

Members will want to know whether there is a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously. Presiding Officer, I can confirm to the Chamber that there is.  It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC, the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference.  These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon. These are decisions for others to make, but I think it is important that we as a Parliament are aware of the position.  Presiding Officer, as I neither sought the abandonment nor continuation of Mr Al Megrahi’s appeal, it is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise. That is correctly a matter for others,  and I would have every confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system were there to be another appeal.   That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with. 

I doubt that the Crown Office would be so comfortable with a new appeal given that it would be accountable to the High Court for its failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to Abdelbaset’s original defence team.

We want the Commission’s report to be in the public domain to help ensure public confidence is retained in our justice system. This Government is doing all that we can to bring disclosure of the Statement of Reasons. I urge all members to support these efforts by supporting our Bill; and supporting our efforts to get the UK Government to make an exception to data protection rules.

Politicians linked to Lockerbie case return to court

[This is the headline over a report dated 15 October on the Zapaday website.  It reads as follows:]

The court case resumes for two former government officials working for the late Moammer Gaddafi's regime. They are accused of squandering public money by granting a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the families of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing victims.

The accused, Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, allegedly brokered this compensation deal in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions and US trade sanctions on Libya. In addition, they requested that Libya be removed from a list of states known for sponsoring terrorism.

These two former senior officials are charged with treason for engaging in negotiations with the lawyers of the victims' families, with the full knowledge that lawyers are not authorised by the US administration to negotiate the conditions of trade sanctions and terrorism suspects.

The presiding judge has argued that the compensation deal was a waste of public money since there was no guarantee that the conditions would be met, nor that the charges for the bombing would be dropped. Observers have registered surprise at the wording of the charges. Given that Libya's central government is still weak after the ousting of Gaddafi, it has been argued that legal proceedings at the moment do not meet international standards.

However, it is evident that Libya's new rulers are keen to show citizens that those who helped Gaddafi cling to power shall be held accountable. Both Saif Al-Islam, Gaddafi's son and Abdullah Al- Senussi, Libya's former chief spy are awaiting trial.

[An earlier post on this blog relating to the trial of Messrs Zwai and Obeidi can be read here.]

I have a burning desire to clear my name

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined The Megrahi dossier: why he was set free that was published in The Herald on this date in 2009:]

The Greenock visit

One question mark that remains relates to Mr MacAskill's decision to visit Megrahi in Greenock Prison. An eight-page document by a senior civil servant in the justice department advises the minister: "Mr Megrahi, as a subject of the transfer request, should be given opportunity to make his own representation on the proposal."

That advice concludes with the recommendation: "The groups and individuals identified should be offered short meetings with you to present their representations."

That Mr MacAskill inferred from this that he should go to meet the prisoner at Greenock is still being challenged by opponents, but the advice appears sufficiently robust to entitle him to say he was acting on advice.

There are then two documents relating to the meeting at HMP Greenock on August 6 - the official minute from the government side and Mr Megrahi's own handwritten note of his presentation to the meeting. (...)

The minute records, in dry official language, the prisoner's insistence that he had been unjustly convicted and his sympathy for the "terrible loss" of the victims' families. The minute adds, as Megrahi told The Herald in Tripoli last week: "He feels there is little prospect that his appeal will be concluded before his death, and that his dreams of returning home cleared no longer exist."

While the minute records Mr MacAskill advising Megrahi that prison transfer could only take place if there were no court proceedings ongoing, there is no specific mention that compassionate release would not require this. However, aides pointed out last night that the meeting was specifically about prisoner transfer, not compassionate release.

The handwritten note from Megrahi states: "I'm a very ill person. The disease that I have is incurable. All the personnel are agreed that I have little chance of living into next year. The last report which I received some weeks ago from consultant reaches the view that I have a short time left. I have a burning desire to clear my name. I think now that I will not witness that ultimate conclusion."

And in words that echoed Mr MacAskill's later reference to a "higher authority", he stated: "As I turn now to face my God, to stand before him, I have nothing to fear." (...)

Holyrood-Westminster relations

The big question for UK ministers arising from documents released yesterday is simply this: Did UK ministers tell the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail?

According to the minute of a meeting in Glasgow with Libyans on March 12 this year, Abdulati Alobidi [RB: the normal English transliteration of this name is al-Obeidi], minister for Europe, spoke of a visit to Tripoli the previous month by Foreign Minister Bill Rammell at which it was pointed out that if Megrahi died in custody it would have "catastrophic effects" on Libyan-UK relations.

Mr Alobidi was minuted as saying: "Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish Ministers."

That remains a clearer statement of the Prime Minister's opinion than Mr Brown has since been prepared to offer in public.

[RB: The accuracy of Mr al-Obeidi's statement was confirmed by David Miliband in a radio interview. According to a report on The Times website:

"The Foreign Secretary admitted that it was true that Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister, had told his Libyan counterpart back in February that the Prime Minister did not want Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi to pass away in Greenock prison."]

Megrahi: how MacAskill linked my release to dropping my appeal

[This is the headline over an extract (with commentary) from John Ashton’s book Megrahi: You are my Jury being published today on the heraldscotland.com website. The extract reads in part:]

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill personally urged the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to drop his appeal as a way of helping his compassionate release from prison, a new book claims today.

The authorised biography of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi reveals for the first time that the minister responsible for deciding whether he would return to Libya actively encouraged Megrahi to give up his case in the appeal court, telling a senior Libyan minister in a private meeting in Edinburgh that "it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal".

By doing so, the Scottish legal system was spared further scrutiny over a case which many observers believe was based on a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had already highlighted six grounds for suggesting Megrahi's conviction for the murder of 270 people at Lockerbie was unsafe.

The book, released this morning at a press conference in Edinburgh, contains the most explicit account of the extraordinary events leading up to Megrahi's controversial release on compassionate grounds in August 2009, which divided public opinion across the world and brought a storm of criticism, particularly from US officials and relatives.

Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was said to have only three months to live, but is still alive more than two years later.

In the book he writes: "On 10 August (2009), MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister [Abdel Ati] Al-Obeidi. By this time I was desperate.

"After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal. He [MacAskill] said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me to be clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice."

The Herald has previously reported diplomatic meetings at which it was revealed that Megrahi would have to drop his appeal to allow the controversial Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) brokered by Westminster after Tony Blair's infamous deal in the desert to ensure UK-Libyan trade links were restored.

Ultimately, Mr MacAskill turned down the application under the PTA signed by the UK Government and Libya, but granted compassionate release instead, for which the status of Megrahi's appeal should have been irrelevant.

Neither Mr MacAskill nor the Scottish Government has been contacted in advance of the book's publication, but the Justice Secretary has previously denied any interference with the legal process. In 2009, Mr MacAskill said Megrahi’s decision to withdraw his second appeal against conviction was "a matter for him and the courts", adding: "My decisions were predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed."

However, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, the new book by John Ashton, a former member of the defence team, suggests a direct link between compassionate release and Megrahi dropping his appeal, apparently to protect the reputation of the Scottish justice system after a verdict seen by many as deeply flawed.

Mr Ashton told heraldscotland: "The Justice Secretary and his officials should, at all times, have made it clear to Mr Megrahi and his representatives that, if he chose to continue his appeal, it would have had no bearing on the justice secretary’s decision on whether or not to grant compassionate release.

"Furthermore, they should have been aware that, given Mr Megrahi's desperate position, even the slightest pressure that was applied would have caused him to abandon the appeal, even though he was not legally obliged to do so. Of course, by dropping the appeal he spared the Scottish criminal justice system a colossal embarrassment."

The book contains a number of revelations pertaining to new evidence and previously unseen documents and information. It is based on interviews with Megrahi and the full report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which referred the case back for a fresh appeal in June 2007 on six different grounds. The commission's full report has never been published.

Although the appeal was granted in 2007, its start was significantly delayed. The defence team, and the new book, claim that the delays could be blamed on the Crown Office, and that many of them were unnecessary. The Crown denied such claims at the time.

However, it was widely agreed that for the appeal to go ahead and for Megrahi to be acquitted of the worst terrorist atrocity to have taken place on mainland Britain would have been a devastating and embarrassing blow to the Scottish legal system, the police investigation, the Crown and judiciary.

What the new book lays bare is just how much new evidence there was to secure Megrahi’s acquittal and just how likely it was if the appeal had gone ahead.

One of the most significant revelations the defence team learned just before he dropped the appeal concerned a fundamental part of the prosecution’s case against Megrahi: that a fragment of circuit board supposed to confirm that the timer used to detonate the Lockerbie bomb came from a Swiss company linked to Megrahi and which allegedly sold 20 such timers only to Libya did not, in fact, match the circuit boards made by this company.

The book also raises serious questions about the reliability of the Crown’s key witnesses and reveals major inconsistencies in statements and forensics evidence.

Megrahi describes his decision to drop the appeal as a "terrible choice to have to make". He writes: "I never doubted that, if they considered the evidence objectively, the appeal judges would overturn the conviction. From that moment I made that decision, I was determined that, if I could not be judged in a court of law, then I should be judged in the court of public opinion. This book presents the case for both the prosecution and the defence.”