Britain expels Libya ambassador

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]

Britain has ordered the expulsion of the Libyan ambassador to London, Omar Jelban, in retaliation for an attack on the British embassy by a pro-Gaddafi crowd in Tripoli.

Jelban has been given 24 hours to leave the country.

"I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries," said the foreign secretary, William Hague. "The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed."

The statement went on: "As a result, I have taken the decision to expel the Libyan ambassador. He is persona non grata pursuant to article 9 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and has 24 hours to leave the country."

According to Foreign Office sources, the building housing both the British embassy residence and its chancellery was burned down by a mob early on Sunday. (...)

The Gaddafi regime appears to have mounted a symbolic attack on empty diplomatic residences and embassies in Tripoli. There are no British diplomats in the Libyan capital.

[During most of the run-up to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi in August 2009, Omar Jelban was chargé d'affaires in the Libyan embassy in London. There had been no ambassador since the departure of Mohammed Bel Kassem Zwai (one of the officers who, along with Gaddafi, staged the coup against King Idris in 1969, and the only one who is still prominent in the regime). Jelban was not, in my view, a significant player in the 2008/2009 political manoeuvrings. On the Libyan side the big hitters were Moussa Koussa and Abdul Ati al-Obeidi.]

Lockerbie bomber 'has been sending home belongings for past six weeks'

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]

The Lockerbie bomber has been sending his possessions home for the past six weeks, it has been claimed, fuelling accusations that the decision to release him is a "done deal". (...)

Sources at Greenock Prison have said Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has been sending personal items back to Libya in anticipation of his release. (...)

Speculation has been rife that Mr MacAskill had made up his mind last week to send Megrahi home on compassionate release. It is claimed that the only man convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December, 1988 over Lockerbie, claiming 270 lives, has just three months to live because he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill again insisted a decision had not been made. He said the minister received a final dossier from officials on Friday and had cleared his diary this week to make his decision. He said Mr MacAskill would attend Cabinet today in Aberdeen, but while the case may be discussed, it was "his decision alone".

The spokesman added that there would be a decision before the end of the month.

A spokesman for the Scottish Prison Service said it would not comment on individual inmates. However, a source said it was "not unusual for prisoners" to send items home if they expected to be released, but this did not mean that they necessarily were going home.

Last night, the Libyan charge d'affaires in London, Omar Jelban, renewed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing, saying Libya "has nothing to fear" from such an investigation.

[A letter headed "Fate of a dying man matters less than the search for truth about Lockerbie" is published in the same newspaper.

The report on the subject in today's edition of The Herald contains the following:

'The Herald understands that Megrahi, the Libyan suffering terminal prostate cancer who is serving his 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, will be released and allowed home before the end of the week. He could be flown to Tripoli before Ramadan begins on August 21.

'Calls, meanwhile, for the Scottish Parliament to be recalled from its summer break to discuss Megrahi's possible release were rejected last night.

'Holyrood Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson said: "I have weighed up all the factors very carefully and have taken the decision not to recall Parliament at this time." (...)

'Omar Jelban, Libya's charge d'affaires in London, said reports that Megrahi has just three months to live were the reason he has dropped a second appeal and hopes to return to his family shortly.'

MacAskill’s statement to parliament – the key issues

[This is the heading over an item posted today by John Ashton on his website Megrahi: You are my Jury.  It reads as follows:]

The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, will later today (29 February) make a statement to the Scottish Parliament. [RB: Mr MacAskill's statement is due very shortly after the commencement of today's session at 1430 GMT.]  The move is in response to – or, more accurately, in response to media reports and political statements relating to – the following passage of Megrahi: You are my Jury (which appears on p354):

On 10 August, MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister Al-Obedi, the Libyan Supreme Court Judge Azzam Eddeeb, and the London Chargé d’Affaires Omar Jelban. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day 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. Obedi 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. It meant abandoning my quest for justice.

It’s clear from this passage that Abdelbaset does NOT allege either that MacAskill said anything along those lines to him directly, or that MacAskill offered to grant compassionate release in return for Abdelbaset dropping his appeal.  It’s a common trick of politicians to deny allegations that have not been made. Let’s hope that MacAskill’s statement doesn’t.

MacAskill will also be facing questions from MSPs. There is only one question that he must answer: did he at any point indicate to Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant Abdelbaset’s compassionate release application if he dropped his appeal?

If the answer is a categorical no, then it is Obedi’s word against his and there, perhaps, the matter will rest. If it is anything less than a flat denial, then the question is unlikely to go away.

The Scottish Government has, of course, already made a statement about the matter.  Yesterday a spokesman claimed that the book is “third-hand hearsay” and stated:

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.

MacAskill himself said: It was always a decision for Mr al-Megrahi whether he maintained or abandoned his appeal, the decision I made was not predicated in any case on that, but that was a matter for him and his legal team.

I’ll deal with these points in turn.

Third-hand hearsay. Abdelbaset is clear in this section of the book that the conversation was hearsay, albeit not third-hand.

These claims are wrong. It’s not clear exactly what claims the Government was responding to. It’s very unlikely that they had a copy of the book, so it’s probable that the spokesman was responding to a report – possibly an inaccurate one – of its contents. (A number of media reports claimed, wrongly, that the book alleges that a deal was done.)

 … officials were present at all meetings the Justice Secretary had on this matter at all times” If this is true, the question remains: did Mr MacAskill at any point, whether out of the earshot of others or not, say to Mr Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant Abdelbaset compassionate release if Abdelbaset dropped his appeal?

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. This is hardly relevant. If MacAskill asked to have a conversation in private, we might infer that he meant, inter alia, that it would not be minuted. It also raises the question, were the minutes contemporaneous?

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.  This falls well short of a denial that the conversation reported by Obedi took place. It is disingenuous to claim that the Government had no interest in Abdelbaset’s decision. Had the appeal gone ahead, it would have cast the Scottish criminal justice, and the Crown Office in particular, in a very poor light.

That was entirely a matter for Mr Megrahi and his legal team. In fact it was entirely a matter for Abdelbaset. His legal team made clear to him that he was under no obligation to drop his appeal and did not advise him that it might help his application for compassionate release.

It was always a decision for Mr al-Megrahi whether he maintained or abandoned his appeal No one has claimed otherwise.

 … the decision I made was not predicated in any case on that, but that was a matter for him and his legal team. Abdelbaset quite clearly does not claim that MacAskill’s decision was predicated on whether or not he dropped the appeal.

Hopes dashed for in-depth inquiry into Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]

A comprehensive public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing is unlikely to go ahead after the UK government said it would not support another investigation, The Scotsman can reveal.

Calls for an inquiry have been growing after the decision of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to drop a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 terrorist attack. Families of the victims had believed that many questions surrounding the attack would have been answered during the appeal.

Scottish Government sources also indicated they would be supportive of a joint "cross-border inquiry" between Holyrood and Westminster, but it emerged last night that senior officials have ruled out supporting another investigation.

Without Whitehall's support, experts have said a Scottish Government-initiated inquiry would be futile since it could only look at the workings of the Scottish judicial system and would have little power to call witnesses and demand crucial documents. Accusations have been made that SNP ministers in Holyrood have only floated the idea of a public inquiry to take the heat off the difficult decision facing justice secretary Kenny MacAskill over whether to send Megrahi back to Libya. (...)

Last night Libya's charge d'affaires in London, Omar Jelban, said reports that Megrahi has just three months to live were the reason he has dropped a second appeal and hopes to return to his family shortly.

Two applications have been made by Megrahi's lawyers, one for compassionate release because of his ill-health and the other a prisoner transfer following an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments.

The Scotsman understands that compassionate release is more likely because it is "the least objectionable" to the American government since it does not break the terms of the international agreement that Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland.

Yesterday the Scottish Government made clear it did not want to go on the record over its hopes to have a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing until after a decision had been made on whether to send Megrahi back to Libya.

However, sources confirmed that ministers would be inclined to support a public inquiry. One senior source pointed out that, in the past, First Minister Alex Salmond had supported this, but the SNP realise that for it to have teeth it would need to be supported by the UK government.

Last night a senior Whitehall source indicated to The Scotsman that this support would not be forthcoming.

He said there would be no formal comment until after a decision had been made by Mr MacAskill regarding Megrahi's future. But he claimed that the prospect of an inquiry was only being aired in briefings because "SNP ministers don't like to have to make difficult decisions". He claimed Mr MacAskill was "feeling the heat" over having to decide whether to send Megrahi back to Libya and was floating ideas to "create a distraction".

There were also questions from Whitehall over why a public inquiry would be necessary when a man had been found guilty of the crime in a trial run by Scottish judges under Scottish law, which had already been unsuccessfully appealed once.

[Note by RB: There was never any hope that Westminster and Whitehall would cooperate in an enquiry into Lockerbie. The fact that an independent body concluded that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice and that serious concerns have been raised about the investigation and prosecution cuts no ice with them. They have too much to hide.

A purely Scottish enquiry would of necessity be limited but nevertheless worthwhile. Having an independent person or body scrutinise the investigation, prosecution and adjudication process in the Lockerbie case and determine what, if anything, went wrong would surely help to restore the tarnished reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system.]

There is a further report in The Scotsman headed "Megrahi's mother makes plea for release". It reads in part:

'The Lockerbie bomber's 95-year-old mother has made an emotional appeal for her son to return to Libya.

'The frail woman directed her plea to Scottish ministers, saying: "Please send my son home."

'Hajja Fatma Ali al-Araibi has not been told her son has terminal cancer because her other children fear the shock will be too great.

'She also revealed that her son, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, phoned her at the end of last week to say he hoped to be home for the start of Ramadan on Friday.

'She said he had been called from Greenock prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence for mass murder, and said to her: "I hope by Ramadan I will be with you." (...)

'Mrs Araibi appealed for Mr MacAskill to release her "scapegoat" son and said she could not wait to "run out to the street and hug him so tight".

'She said: "I do not close the house door at all. I am expecting him to enter at any moment. For 11 years I have not spent the holy month of Ramadan with him. I am waiting for that day when he comes back."

'Mrs Araibi said she was surrounded by family members as the news of her son's possible release broke last week, including Megrahi's elder brother, Mohammed Ali, and several grandchildren.

'Sending a message to the relatives of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight 103, she said: "We told them that my son was innocent, that he would not slaughter a chicken at home."'

Easier to grant compassionate release if appeal dropped

[What follows is taken from an account written by Abdelbaset Megrahi which is to be found on page 354 of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury:]

On 10 August [2009], [Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny] MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister [Abdel Ati] al-Obeidi, the Libyan Supreme Court Judge Azzam Eddeeb, and the London Chargé d’Affaires Omar Jelban. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day 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, he stated that MacAskill gave him to understand that it would be easier 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.

Next day, with huge reluctance and sadness, I broke the news to [solicitor] Tony Kelly that I was dropping the appeal