Call for public inquiry into bombing

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

Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.

In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.

The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.

First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.

The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.

“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?

“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.

“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.

“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.

“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”

The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Megrahi. [Note by RB: Another instance of the SCCRC's conclusion that, on six grounds, the conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice, being blithely swept under the carpet.] Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the atrocity.

“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision

Almost three-quarters of Scots believe First Minister Alex Salmond was correct to snub requests to appear before a US inquiry.

The SNP-commissioned YouGov poll of 1212 people showed 72% agreed they were right not to attend and said the Scottish Government is accountable to itself, not US politicians.

A total of 14% think lobbying by BP played a part in Megrahi’s release, while 54% agreed with the Scottish Government that he was released “solely in line with Scots law”.

And 76% said it was proper that the decision on whether to release Megrahi was made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, not a minister in the UK Government.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “This poll demonstrates overwhelmingly that the people of Scotland believe that the Justice Secretary took the decision for the right reasons, that it was right for the Scottish Government and no one else to take the decision, and that it was right not to answer to a US Senate hearing on the issue.”

[The Scotsman publishes a long series of articles on the anniversary of Megrahi's release. The main one is tendentiously headlined "Freeing Megrahi 'will cost SNP the election'". It contains links to the other pieces and can be read here.]

Lockerbie mum’s wish

A mother whose son was killed in the Lockerbie bombings last night said she hoped a fresh appeal would reveal the truth behind her son’s death.

Terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was yesterday refused bail at an Appeal Court hearing in Edinburgh.

He is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, including Alistair Berkley, 29, of Sandhoe, near Hexham, Northumberland. (...)

If he were to be granted an appeal, all the evidence surrounding the attack would be reinvestigated, a move supported by Alistair’s mother, Jean.

Last night she said she was confident Megrahi would receive the right medical attention while he was in prison.

She said: “I don’t have any strong feelings about whether he should get bail or not.

“In these circumstances I’m sure he will get the same medical treatment as if he was out of prison.

“The news that he has got a fatal illness obviously just makes us want what we’ve always wanted – for the appeal to go on.”

Alistair, a law lecturer, was on board the Pan Am Flight 103, travelling from his workplace in London to New York. (...)

The Berkley family have never been totally satisfied with the conviction of Libyan intelligence agent Megrahi in Holland in early 2001.

And last night Mrs Berkley, 78, said she was still looking for the truth behind her son’s death. She said: “I am not vindictive about the whole thing – I know that some people are, but I am not.

“We feel there is a lot more that we don’t know. We’ve been hoping there would be another appeal because it’s another opportunity to find out what happened.

“I’m co-ordinator of the UK’s family group and we all think there is a great deal that we should know. Everybody knows there were more people involved than just Megrahi.” (...)

[From Journal Live, a news website covering mainly the Northeast of England. The full article can be read here.]

Relatives of Lockerbie victims begin new legal fight for public inquiry

[This is the headline over a report recently published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]

UK Families Flight 103, the relatives' campaign group, will use human rights laws in a bid to uncover the truth about the terrorist attack, which claimed 270 lives in December 1988.

The group has hired Gareth Peirce, the prominent human rights solicitor better known for her work representing terror suspects, to devise a legal strategy to secure the inquiry for which families have long campaigned.

It is the first time the families have formally hired lawyers to pursue an inquiry.

The development comes after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, rejected the group's latest demands for an independent review of the bombing. He informed them of his decision in a letter, dated Christmas Eve, which was received by the relatives last week.

In the letter, Mr Brown said: "All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry." (...)

Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the atrocity, said: "We are arguing that our human rights have been transgressed by the failure to hold an inquiry.

"This is the first time we have hired lawyers to do this. We have until now relied on appealing to the good sense and good nature of our politicians, and that has been to no avail."

The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among the victims when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, said: "I feel extremely positive about this development. For 21 years we have been asking the same questions and asking for an inquiry but I think we are nearer to getting it than we have ever been."

Legal tactics used by UK Families Flight 103 are likely to focus on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, which details the right to life.

Previous legal cases have shown that any failure by the state to properly investigate a suspected murder may amount to a breach of the right to life of the victim.

Options open to the families include launching a judicial review of the Government's decision to refuse an inquiry, or using human rights laws to overturn Megrahi's conviction so that ministers are forced to act.

Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the flight, said it was crucial to overturn Megrahi's guilty verdict so that "public outrage" left the Prime Minister with no choice but to allow in independent inquiry into the bombing.

Jean Berkley, who lost her 29-year-old son Alistair, said Mr Brown's letter "was not a well-considered reply" and added: "This is a kind of treatment we are used to receiving. Our perfectly-well thought out points were dismissed in a rather thoughtless way."

[The Prime Minister's letter, dated 24 December 2009, is in reply to the letter delivered by the UK relatives on 27 October 2009. It reads as follows:]

Thank you for your letter of 27 October.

As I said in my letter of 23 October, I am deeply aware of the pain and suffering caused to you and the other families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. You continue to have my deepest sympathies for your loss.

You referred in your previous letters to the need for a public inquiry into the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing and in your letter of 27 October you again referred to the Heathrow incident. As I said in my last letter, the Heathrow incident to which you refer was examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland, which concluded that it did not render the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe.

All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry.

I do appreciate that this answer is still not what you were looking for. Please be assured that my thoughts, and those of the Government, remain with you and the other families, especially at what must be a particularly difficult time of year for you all.

Moussa Koussa allowed to leave UK

[What follows is excerpted from a report in The Guardian on this date in 2011:]

Families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing have accused the British government of "betrayal" after it allowed Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister, to leave the UK to attend an international conference.

Koussa, who defected to Britain at the end of last month, was en route to Doha in Qatar on Tuesday, where an international conference on the future of Libya is to be held with representatives from the Benghazi-based opposition.

He is expected to return to the UK after the conference, but is free to travel as he pleases.

Brian Flynn, the brother of JP Flynn, who died in the 1988 attack and now organises the Victims of Pan Am 103 Incorporated campaign group in New York, said the UK authorities had "crossed a line" by allowing Koussa to attend the conference and thereby suggest he is a peace negotiator rather than, as they believe, a key instigator of the bombing.

"I think the British are being played by him … he has convinced them he can be valuable in this process, but he is not the suave diplomat in the suit sitting on the sidelines, he is one of the key guys who mastermined [the bombing of] Pan Am flight 103," Flynn said.

"He is a stated enemy of the British government. Our feeling is that the British government gave a nod to Lockerbie by questioning him two days before this conference, but that feels disingenuous. The Scottish and American prosecutors on Lockerbie are being betrayed by the politicians and the diplomats. Cameron has been good on Libya, but this sounds an awful lot like Tony Blair is back in charge." (...)

It is understood Koussa spent a week being debriefed by MI6 at a safehouse before being allowed to go free. He was questioned by Dumfries and Galloway police about the 1988 bombing, in which 270 people died, though was he was not a suspect.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, had insisted that Koussa would not be given immunity from prosecution.

He was helped to defect by MI6 after leaving Tripoli for Tunisia on what was initially described as a private visit.

Jean Berkley, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her 29-year old son Alistair when the Pan Am flight was blown up in mid-air, said she was mystified by the decision to let Koussa travel.

"It is very unexpected," she said. "Is he the basis of a new Libyan opposition, or what? He doesn't seem a very suitable person. Our aim is always to get more of the truth and we want a full public inquiry. Koussa must have some interesting knowledge. It is hard to know what to make of it. We will wait and see and watch with interest." (...)

Koussa's links to the UK go back to the period when he was deputy foreign minister in the mid-1990s and was involved in talks that revealed the Gaddafi regime's past support for the IRA. He was head of Libya's foreign intelligence service in the 1990s – after the Lockerbie bombing. He was also involved in still inconclusive talks about the 1984 murder of Constable Fletcher.

In 2003 he played a pivotal role in talks about surrendering Libya's programme for weapons of mass destruction – the decision which paved the way for Gaddafi's temporary rehabilitation with the west. In 2009 he took part in negotiations over the controversial return home of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Scottish police will be invited to Tripoli to question Megrahi

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman, following on from yesterday's exclusive on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]

Libya will invite Scottish police officers to Tripoli to interview the former Libyan agent convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, according to Britain’s foreign minister Alastair Burt.

The move, which could see Dumfries and Galloway police travel to Libya shortly to speak with Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, was welcomed by Scotland’s most senior law officer the Lord Advocate Frank Mullholland QC. (...)

Yesterday Megrahi’s brother Nasser said the former Libyan agent, who is suffering from prostate cancer, was too sick to be interviewed by British investigators.

So far Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council, formed in March to lead the revolution that toppled Muammar al-Gaddafi, has dragged its feet on giving Scottish officers access.

But the new cabinet is keen to build trust with the West as it seeks to unfreeze more than £100 billion in assets held by international banks.

Frank Duggan, the Washington-based lawyer representing US victims of the bomb, said: “I am pleased to hear it. The US families want to make sure that this case is still alive. I suppose it is impressive that after 23 years it is still alive.”

Mr Mulholland said: “If reports are correct I am pleased that the Transitional Government of Libya has agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway police to travel to Libya for inquiries.

“This is a live inquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Our police and prosecution authorities stand ready to investigate and follow any new lines of inquiry which may be emerging in Libya.”

[A report in today's edition of The Guardian contains the following:]

Libyan suspect Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, cleared of bombing in 2000, could face fresh trial – but victims' families are sceptical

The new Libyan government's undertaking will also hearten Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate and chief prosecutor for Scotland, who announced several months ago he was reopening prosecution files on Lockerbie.

New laws on double jeopardy in Scotland, which will allow previously cleared suspects to be tried again, came into force in late November. That would allow prosecutors to attempt a fresh trial of Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi in 2000 in the Lockerbie case but was cleared by the court.

In August, Fhimah denied any links to the atrocity and insisted he too was a victim of Gaddafi, but some US relatives have pressed for both men to be handed over to the US for a fresh trial – moves the Libyans have brushed away.

Mulholland said yesterday: "The trial court held that the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people was an act of state-sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. This is a live inquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice."

Megrahi's family insisted he was too ill to meet British officials. Nasser al Megrahi, his brother, said he was being cared for by relatives. "He is really ill," he said. "He is in his room, I have not seen him today. He's too tired to see anyone, even us, his family."

He also questioned why Scottish police and prosecutors would want to reopen the case or interview his brother, since the UK authorities had previously agreed to release Megrahi, who is terminally ill with advanced prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds. "Why would they want to reopen the case? That doesn't make sense, it was not the Gaddafi government that made the judgment, it was the Scottish [government]." (...)

Jean Berkley, convenor of the UK Families of Flight 103, said she was pleased that there was renewed interest in the case, but she was not optimistic that a police visit to Tripoli would uncover significant new information. But she said: "We would welcome any attempts to find out more of the truth because we feel that there's a lot we don't know."

Professor Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who proposed trying Megrahi and Fhimah on neutral ground in the Netherlands, was sceptical that the initiative would lead to a fresh trial. He said if detectives tried to interview Fhimah as a suspect, they would need to apply new Scottish rules requiring his lawyer to be present.

"If they've now got permission to go and look at Libyan archives to see what they can find, fine, but I'm amazed if they think they can go and interview Megrahi: the position of the Crown Office has been we've got Megrahi, we're now looking for others," he said. "I suspect they'll be talking to people who now head the various ministries in Libya to see whether they can find any archives on Lockerbie when it was under the Gaddafi regime."

[A report in today's edition of The Times (behind the paywall) contains the following:]

It is understood that the Lockerbie inquiry team are keen to speak to Abudullah al-Senussi, a key figure in the Gaddafi regime. Al-Senussi is believed to be in custody in the town of Sabha after his capture, along with Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, last month. [RB: There remains grave doubt about whether al-Senussi has been captured at all.]

Al-Senussi, known as the executioner, is already wanted by the International Criminal Court. France wants him to face justice for the 1989 bombing of an airliner over Niger. A French court has already sentenced him to life in prison in absentia. The ICC issued an arrest warrant against Al-Senussi, 62, earlier this year for alleged crimes against humanity. The court has described him as “one of the most powerful and efficient organs of repression of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime”. (...)

Crown Office sources indicated yesterday that they had no plans to speak to al-Megrahi, the only man so far convicted of the outrage. Mr Mulholland added: “The trial court held that the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people was an act of state-sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. This is a live enquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice.”

Victims' families: worst possible outcome

[This is part of the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]

Relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster said today they feared vital evidence that could shed more light on the attack would remain hidden after the courts in Scotland granted the bomber's request to drop his appeal.

The families of some of the people who were killed in the attack had hoped the hearings, granted by the Scottish authorities after a three-year investigation, would uncover new details about the bombing that killed 270 people.

"This is the worst possible decision for the relatives," said Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed on board Pan Am flight 103, which exploded as it flew over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. "There now seems little chance of this evidence being heard and scrutinised in public."

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murder for his part in the bombing, and who now has terminal prostate cancer, has hinted strongly that he was secretly offered a deal to secure his quick, early, release from prison.

Appeal judges in Edinburgh were told yesterday that the 57-year-old was convinced that abandoning his long-running appeal against his conviction would "assist in the early determination" of the application to be sent back to Libya.

Maggie Scott QC, the head of Megrahi's legal team, increased suspicion of an unofficial deal by saying her client, who is now very weak, in severe pain and distressed, believed he would get home quickly only if he gave up the appeal.

She hinted that Megrahi believed that keeping the appeal "alive" meant the Scottish government would either block or delay his applications for compassionate release, including a separate prisoner transfer bid to be sent home to continue his sentence in a Libyan jail.

"His absolute priority in the little time he has left is to spend it with his family in his homeland," she told the court. "It's the appellant's belief that instructions to abandon his appeal will assist in the early determination of these applications."

Alex Salmond, the first minister, denied the claims, saying his government had "no interest whatsoever" in Megrahi abandoning his appeal, adding that the decision would be made by the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, only on "the evidence received and the advice received".

He added: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else, it will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."

Scotland's government has come under increasing pressure not to release Megrahi in recent days. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has phoned MacAskill urging him not to release the Libyan, and yeserday it emerged that seven US senators – including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry – had written to the justice secretary outlining their concerns. But expectations were growing last night that MacAskill was likely to free Megrahi, on compassionate grounds within days, after telling colleagues he was "very close" to a decision. It appeared that MacAskill had already ruled out using the prisoner transfer treaty after it emerged that he had made no attempt to clear away one significant obstacle to Megrahi's transfer.

The lord advocate, Elish Angiolini, is pursuing a separate appeal to get Megrahi's 27-year minimum sentence increased, but under the treaty no transfer can take place if criminal proceedings, including any appeals, are live. However, the next court hearing for Angiolini's appeal will take place on 8 September – at least a week after MacAskill's self-imposed deadline for a decision.

Legal sources said Angiolini had repeatedly told the Scottish government she would make a much quicker decision on dropping her appeal if MacAskill asked, but this request had never been made.

Megrahi was convicted of mass murder in 2001 for the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 people in the Scottish town.

After protracted international pressure he was put on trial with his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, under Scots law, at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. Megrahi was found guilty and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years. Fhimah was found not guilty and freed.

Relatives of the victims said that though dropping the appeal meant many questions would go unanswered they would not give up their campaign to uncover the truth.

The Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter, Helga, called the decision "incredibly frustrating" but not unexpected. "The relatives of those who died have been denied access to the evidence that was uncovered by a three-year investigation by the Scottish criminal cases review commission. Unfortunately it is what we expected from the beginning because the authorities – in Scotland, London and Washington – do not want any more information on this coming out."

Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair died in the bombing, agreed the decision was a blow but said the focus would now shift to getting a full independent inquiry. "The families are used to setbacks so we will continue the campaign, but this is difficult because people set lots of store by the appeal and now we are not going to hear the evidence that persuaded the [commission] to grant the hearing in the first place." Alistair's brother, Matt, said: "Many people with a deep understanding of this case have serious concerns about it which are unlikely to go away."

Letter to editors

[What follows is the text of a letter sent on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi campaign to the editors of selected newspapers and broadcast news media in the United Kingdom and abroad.]

In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland.

Whilst there have been demands from a number of quarters to open an inquiry into how and why Mr Al-Megrahi was availed of compassionate release, you will certainly also be aware of the efforts of others to not only investigate this but to establish a full, comprehensive and open public inquiry into the entire Lockerbie affair including:
*The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
*The police investigation of the tragedy.
*The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
*The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
*The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
*The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.

Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. In the latter months of 2008, a campaign was launched with the express aim of obtaining Justice for Megrahi (JFM). Since its founding, it has petitioned the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation, the Government of Malta, and most recently the Scottish Government and members of the US Senate to support the establishment of a comprehensive, public inquiry, of the type mentioned above, into all matters pertaining to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie tragedy. At the heart of this campaign from its inception has lain a commitment to see transparency prevail and justice done in a case which from the outset has been afflicted with accusations of buck passing, obfuscation, political interference and a gross miscarriage of justice.

Confusion still continues to reign where this case is concerned, ranging from some believing that Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted by eight Law Lords to his having been released via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). Both of these contentions are erroneous. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of fact, and it has always been central to this campaign, whether he actually committed the offence he has been convicted of or not, that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice based simply on the evidence laid before the three judges at Zeist by the prosecution. We do not seek to attribute blame for the events of 21st December 1988. We do not seek retribution for investigatory or judicial shortcomings. We seek justice in the name of justice.

Courts of fact can and do get things wrong. This, after all, is precisely why we rely on the institution of the Court of Appeal. Where most convicts would be happy to have their case put before the appeal court on just one ground for appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal by the SCCRC on no fewer than six grounds. Taking this into account, we also fully and deeply identify with those bereaved friends and families who, perfectly understandably, believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe. Nevertheless, if Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. Justice should not and must not be viewed as a tool of convenience. It is our belief that all of the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.

For your convenience, you will find included below the letters sent to Mr Salmond and Mr McAskill, and, additionally, to the American senators. Furthermore, you will also find the list of signatories who are endorsing the objective of opening a Lockerbie public inquiry.

It is our belief that the fourth estate owes a moral obligation, not only to its readers and viewers but to the bereaved of Lockerbie especially, to commit its voice firmly behind demands for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. MSPs have already come out in support of such an inquiry, and although both Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have endorsed such in principle, they seem hesitant to grasp the nettle where it comes to setting one up in Scotland. Moreover, the media have a vital and powerful role to play in ensuring that our Scottish justice system, which is currently regarded internationally as an embarrassment, and is seen as demonstrably malleable by political hands, is reinstated to its rightful former position as an institution which can be looked up to, respected and trusted by the people.

With this in mind, we wish to extend to you an invitation to place your name alongside those of the other signatories on the letter to the Scottish Government. We feel that support of this nature from yourself, given the prominent stature of your institution, would add considerable weight to promoting the aims of this campaign.

The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.

The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Mr Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. Media pressure is a vital tool in achieving this in a case where the judiciary and politicians seem thus far to be failing. We hope that you will find the arguments presented here and in the letters below convincing enough for you to add your name to the list of signatories.

This letter is being sent to multiple press and media outlets.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi committee member).

THE CURRENT LIST OF SIGNATORIES.

Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mrs Jean Berkley
(Co-ordinator UK Families Flight 103 and mother of Alistair Berkley: PA103 victim).
Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the Architect of the Camp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mr Robert Forrester
(Justice for Megrahi campaign committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103).
Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).
Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).

LETTER TO FIRST MINISTER MR SALMOND (THE IDENTICAL CONTENT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE MR MACASKILL), 22ND JULY 2010.

Dear First Minister,

I write on behalf of the current signatories to the petition to the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (published in September 2009) requesting the institution of a full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy at Lockerbie in 1988 and the subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist, which resulted in his conviction in 2001 for the murder of 270 people. (...)

In August of 2009, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, sanctioned the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi on medical grounds. No matter which side of the fence one is on, Mr MacAskill took a sensitive and challenging decision on an issue that was always going to be contentious and fraught; his conclusion was based on medical advice suggesting that Mr Al-Megrahi's life expectancy might not exceed a total of three months. Medical judgments, much like legal ones, are based on practice and precedent. Medicine, however much we may wish it to be, is not an exact science, hence it is referred to by the term practice; no case is identical to any other in all respects and there must, therefore, always be an element of guesswork involved. Nevertheless, no sooner had the three month period elapsed than protests were emanating from predictable quarters in debating chambers and the press questioning why a Greater Power had neglected to avail Mr Al-Megrahi of an audience.

In light of the recent difficulties being encountered by BP in the USA, these voices have been encouraged to become increasingly shrill: with ill-informed aspersions being cast on an almost daily basis in the direction of the Scottish Government. Mr MacAskill employed due process under Scots law in acting as he did. He did not resort to the device of the PTA but instead applied a facility that is enshrined in Scots law, namely, compassionate release. All Scots have just cause to be proud of their system in this regard insofar as, combined with the fact that we have no death sentence available to us, we can demonstrate that we do not bring our system down to the level of the murderer to resolve our problems, and that we are compassionate. In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release.

In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition). Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.

From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.

Finally, we should point out that the reason the petition was originally directed to the United Nations was because we considered that although the General Assembly does not have within its gift the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before it (unlike the Security Council), given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow. We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start.

Thank you kindly for your time and attention.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Committee member of Justice for Megrahi).

LETTER TO SENATORS GILLIBRAND, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ AND SCHUMER, 29TH JULY 2010.

Dear Senators Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer,

You may be aware that a group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open, public inquiry which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).

For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html

In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves. We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged by his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.

With regard to the release, we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details: http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm

As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of the prisoner’s medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock. See also:
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm

Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue to claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.

It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.

High above courthouses worldwide stands a statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and its instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished, we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.

An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we are all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.

We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.

We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.

Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester.

Dr Swire's submission to Kenny MacAskill

[A group of UK relatives of victims of Pan Am 103 had a meeting on 1 July with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, in the context of Mr MacAskill's duties in respect of prisoner transfer and/or compassionate release in the case of Abdelbaset Megrahi. What follows is Dr Jim Swire's personal submission to the minister, reproduced with the consent of Dr Swire and Mr MacAskill. The Herald's edition of 3 July contains an article on the subject. It can be read here.]

Secretary,

The prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which is among the subjects we will raise with you today was born in what the media have come to refer to as ‘the deal in the desert’ between Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.

We, relatives of some of those who died aboard the Maid of the Seas in 1988 come from a deeper darker desert of more than 20 years duration: the desert of loss in which we have searched for truth and justice. During those 20 years, time and again, we have been denied an inquiry by a whole succession of English Prime Ministers. Almost the only light to shine into that darkness has been those aspects of the truth which we have gleaned from study of the evidence led at Zeist. You will find us make common cause for the continuation therefore of the current appeal as being the only currently available vehicle for discovering more of that truth we crave, and to which we have an unalienable right.

I am grateful for the opportunity to put my personal views to you today, that is both a privilege and an honour. I know that within our group there is great hope that the current appeal will clear up the major doubts surrounding this verdict and throw some light on the truth we seek as to how our beloved families came to be unprotected, and whose was the hand that slew them. But today my plea is an individual one from the heart.

You have the great responsibility of deciding how to balance the needs of Scotland, her criminal justice system and her people, against what shall be the impact upon the prisoner Baset Al Megrahi, who till now has always maintained his innocence and his desperation to clear his name.

You have the new procedure of the Prisoner Transfer agreement (PTA) to consider, and the knowledge that Baset is dying in his prison cell and that his presence there adds nothing to the judicial process, any more than his release could further endanger the public.

I may speak only for myself, but for you to take any step that would abort the current appeal would be anathema to me and I believe to many other UK relatives. I realise that for Baset’s present appeal to continue, is an expensive option in terms not only of money, resource allocation and their Lordships' time, but also raises the possibility that the decisions made by some of Scotland's most eminent judges at Zeist, and the behaviour of the Crown Office and Scottish police might be called into question should the appeal succeed. Such possibilities will lead to pressure upon you as you make your decision.

On the other hand, to allow the appeal to be abandoned would be a body blow to the international reputation of Scotland and to domestic confidence in our judicial system for a generation. I suggest that the decision to use the PTA and so stop the appeal would, in the longer term, be even more dearly bought than to allow the appeal to continue.

Immediately following the issue of indictments against the 2 Libyans I went to see Colonel Gaddafi to plead that he allow his 2 citizens to attend trial before a Scottish Court under what I believed to be one of the most distinguished and fairest systems of criminal justice of any country. After the intervention of a number of eminent people around the world, the Colonel agreed, and I remained in court throughout, to listen to all the evidence.

I found that far from underlining their guilt the evidence convinced me that the two were simply not guilty as charged. That view has been amplified since by the spectacle of a number of international observers and jurists adding to a flood of public criticism about the lack of fairness of the trial, and by new evidence coming to light, especially that concerning the Heathrow break-in.

But we must look closer to home within our own Scottish borders for the most significant criticism of the trial process: to the SCCRC. As you know sir, they found that, partly on account of a failure by the Crown to share evidential material with the defence, there was a significant risk that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Hence the current appeal.

We are the inheritors of a justice system of which our great nation, Scotland, has been the proud protector for centuries, and over which you now have great influence. Faced with the spectre that Zeist may have been a miscarriage of justice by that great system, during what is arguably the most significant case it has ever handled, I feel sure that you will want to ensure that the name of Scotland and her justice emerge at the bar of history vindicated. For that to be evident to the historians of the future, our judicial system needs to be seen to have reacted responsibly from within its own resources to the challenge which this case has presented.

The SCCRC findings were but a first step in such a process of self examination. To continue that process we need to see our best legal minds re-evaluating the evidence, both original and new, to decide whether this verdict should stand. That seems to demand the continuation of the present appeal.

The news that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport on the early morning of the disaster, and that information about it had remained unknown till after Baset had been found guilty, has led me to write personally to Elish Angiolini our current Lord Advocate, as a vital member of the existing Scottish justice system to ask her to do three things:-

1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had evidence of the break-in during the 12 years that it had remained hidden.

2.) If no such evidence could be found, to show why it had not been passed to the Crown Office by those who must have discovered it during their conduct of the criminal investigation.

3.) To consider whether a fresh Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) should be initiated in view of the misdirection given to the original one namely that the court was to presume that the explosive device must have come from Frankfurt.

It must be clear to any objective observer that the absence of this information influenced the fairness of the Zeist trial, and rendered the FAI unable to examine all factors which might have contributed to the deaths. The absence of an explanation for its having lain unmentioned for 12 years has led to grave accusations against the Crown Office by one of the UN's appointed observers, Prof Hans Koechler, and no doubt these matters will be faced up to if the appeal continues.

My letter to the Lord Advocate of 5th June this year remains acknowledged, but as yet unanswered.

In a letter to our group's co-ordinator, Jean Berkley, and dated 19th June this year, Jack Straw, your opposite number at Westminster wrote "As the (PTA) was the first .... to provide for the transfer of a prisoner without his or her consent... the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested additional time to consider the human rights implications of this...." Jack Straw then refused to allow that committee the full time that they had asked for, to consider those Human Rights implications.

You, Sir, however under the provisions of the PTA have at least 90 days from the date of the Libyan government application, to consider the balance between the prisoner’s rights, the needs of the Scottish public to have faith in their criminal justice system and the needs of the relatives of all nationalities to know the truth about who murdered our family members, and why they were not prevented from doing so.

I think that the eyes of those proud Scots who gave the world the Enlightenment and guarded our legal system so well will be upon your decision.

To use the PTA would be to stop the second appeal and would cost our country the best chance of showing that it can objectively assess its own past performance and if necessary be brave enough to correct it from within, even in the face of gross international pressures.

It would also grievously damage the search by innocent relatives for the truth concerning the murders of their dear families.

You have, Sir, an alternative which again appears similarly to carry no legally enshrined requirement on the part of the prisoner to initiate its use. That would be to grant him Compassionate Release (CR). The decision to do that could include provision to return him home just as soon as the PTA could, but without compromising the ongoing second appeal.

I began by pointing to Baset's position, he has always maintained to me that he is innocent but that he did not wish to return home to his beloved family until his name, and that of his family for the future had been cleared. I acknowledge that for you the responsibility for resurrecting the good name of Scottish justice through the continuation of this appeal is a far greater issue than the needs of an individual convicted prisoner.

But I am here simply as a father who is determined to find out who murdered his daughter and why they were not prevented from doing so. I have a right to know these things, but as an individual I have never sought revenge, for vengeance must remain in the hands of a far greater Power than you or I Sir. Thus I have applauded the easing of the enmity between Libya and Britain, but I have also empathised with the fate of one man, now dying, and his family, whose continuing torturous separation serves no purpose in the administration of justice, beyond being a means of reducing the cries of outrage raised by those who set aside the precepts of human kindness.

Use of Compassionate Release(CR) would allow Baset home knowing that review of his case could continue. It would gloriously fulfil the Christian exhortation ‘love thine enemy’ for many I know regard Baset as such.

Use of CR would also mean that those innocent relatives who seek the truth and desperately hope therefore that the appeal can continue and reveal more of that truth would get their wish.

We or our descendents will be around to see how history judges the great decision which it falls upon you, Sir, to make.

I wish you wisdom, integrity and human kindness in making that weighty decision.

First anniversary of death of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died one year ago today.  Here is the statement that Justice for Megrahi issued on that occasion:]

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has now died without having been able to clear his name of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 on the 21st of December 1988 during his lifetime. Now all those politicians and Megrahi-guilt apologists who regard compassion as being a weakling's alternative to vengeance, who boast of their skills at remote medical diagnosis, and who persistently refuse to address the uncomfortable facts of the case, will doubtless fall silent. Finally, the ‘evil terrorist’ has been called to account for himself before a “Higher Power”.

The prosecution case against him held water like a sieve. We are expected to believe the fantastic tale of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow transfer of an invisible, unaccompanied suitcase which miraculously found itself situated in the perfect position in the hold of 103 to create maximum destructive effect having eluded no fewer than three separate security regimes. There is no evidence for any such luggage ever having left the ground in either Malta or Germany, it is mere surmise. Not only that but we have accusations of the key Crown witness having been bribed for testimony; a multitude of serious question marks over material evidence, including the very real possibility of the crucial fragment of PCB having been fabricated; discredited forensic scientists testifying for the prosecution; Crown witness testimony being retracted after the trial and, most worryingly, allegations of the Crown’s non-disclosure of evidence which could have been key to the defence. Added to which, evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.

The judges were under immense pressure to bring in a verdict of guilty. Zeist was the most high profile trial that the Scottish High Court of Justiciary had ever presided over. There was massive international interest, and this was compounded by the fact that the judges played the dual roles of judge and jury in a case in which the indictments were brought by the same official body that had appointed them as judges in the first instance, the Lord Advocate. Anyone hoping, therefore, to discover an application of sound, empirical reasoning based on concrete evidence being exercised in the field of jurisprudence would do well to avoid the Zeistjudgement. Indeed, the most exceptional of Zeist’s many exceptional features is the judgement. Anyone reading this extraordinary document could be forgiven for thinking that in Scotland there is a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof is on the defence. In the words of Professor Hans Köchler (UN appointed International Observer at the Kamp van Zeist Trial) commenting on the second appeal: “[it] bears the hallmarks of an intelligence operation.”

The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about. Some in the legal and political establishments may well be breathing a sigh of relief now that Mr al-Megrahi has died. This would be a mistake. Many unfortunates who fell foul of outrageous miscarriages of justice in the past have had their names cleared posthumously. The great and the good of western civilisation who have clamoured for Mr al-Megrahi’s blood of late may find it a salutary experience to reflect on the case of Derek Bentley: convicted and hanged in 1953, aged nineteen, for a crime for which in 1998 he was acquitted on his posthumous appeal. However long it takes, the campaign seeking to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed will continue unabated not only in his name and that of his family, who must still bear the stigma of being related to the ‘Lockerbie Bomber’, but, above all, it will carry on in the name of justice. A justice which is still being sought by and denied to many of the bereaved resultant from the Lockerbie tragedy.

It took almost half a century to resolve the Bentley case. With the Zeist justice campaign now in its twelfth year, one has to ask, when faced with such intransigence, precisely whom the democratically elected, executive arm of state represents. Historically, all the major parties, both in Holyrood and Westminster, must shoulder equal responsibility. However, since first coming to power in 2007, the SNP government has actively taken measures which hinder any progress towards lifting the fog that lies over events, much to the dismay of its own party supporters and activists who take an interest in the case. In 2009, a statutory instrument which was supposed to remove the legislative prohibition on publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons for the second appeal (a document that cost tax payers in excess of £1,000,000 to produce) was so drafted as to render publication effectively impossible. In 2010, the government also fired new legislation through parliament (‘Cadder’ Section7) that makes any prospect of opening another appeal in the interests of justice a forlorn hope. Even today, ignoring the fact that, with the support of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, campaigners finally forced the government to admit that it does in law (under the Inquiries Act of 2005) have the power to open an inquiry into the case, the government persists in sending out correspondence claiming that it doesn’t; this, of course, is accompanied by the hackneyed old mantra of their not doubting the safety of the conviction. Furthermore, during the consultation period of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, campaigners established that the Data Protection Act posed no legal obstacle to the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for the second appeal, however, the government maintained otherwise with the result that it was ultimately left to the courage and commitment of members of the journalistic community to test the government’s position to destruction. All of the aforementioned, and the regrettable habit of appointing Crown Office insiders to the position of Lord Advocate, are not reassuring signs that this matter is being treated with a sense of balance and objectivity by the authorities. The record has stuck. The longer this goes on, the more the doubts over the government’s true loyalties will increase.

This case has now become emblematic of an issue which affects each and every one of us and poses some profoundly basic questions which we ignore at our peril, namely: what do we perceive justice to be, what role ought it to play in our society and whom should it exist to serve? Our laws and how we apply them to our society are the most fundamental descriptor of how we function as a cohesive and coherent entity. They are effectively a portrait of our identity as a people. If, through complacency, we permit cosy, established authority to dictate the terms and to brush under the carpet concerns over how justice is defined and dispensed for the sake of convenience, expediency and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, says that “Scotland's Criminal Justice system is a cornerstone of our society, and it is paramount that there is total public confidence in it.” Scotland’s independent and professional arbiter in the matter of referrals to the Court of Appeal, the SCCRC, believe that, on no fewer than six grounds, Mr al-Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice at Zeist. Whether or not the courts are the right and proper platform to deal with this case, the conviction has been in the hands of the High Court of Justiciary since 2001 producing no resolution whatsoever and, moreover, how amenable are the courts now likely to be towards sanctioning another appeal given that they have been invested with new powers which allow them to reject applications which question their own judgements? Fine words are not enough. Action is required. After all, the government took executive action to release Mr al-Megrahi following the dropping of his appeal (something he was under no legal obligation to do). 52% of respondents to an opinion poll conducted by a major Scottish national newspaper supported the call for an independent inquiry into the case. Over a two week period, and with minimal publicity, 1,646 individuals put their names to a petition for an inquiry, which still remains open before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee. If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government act by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair. As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.

Signed:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton (Author of ‘Megrahi: You are my Jury’ and co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business’).

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Mr Benedict Birnberg (Retired senior partner of Birnberg Peirce & Partners).

Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Mr Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103).

Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Dr David Fieldhouse (Police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site).

Mr Robert Forrester (Secretary of Justice for Megrahi).

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).

Mr Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector).

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of ‘Private Eye’).

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988).

Ms A L Kennedy (Author).

Dr Morag Kerr (Secretary Depute of Justice for Megrahi).

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).

Mr Moses Kungu (Lockerbie councillor on the 21st of December 1988).

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (Poet and journalist).

Mr Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator).

Mr Rik McHarg (Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites).

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).

Mr Marcello Mega (Journalist covering the Lockerbie incident).

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for ‘Private Eye’).

Rev’d John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Len Murray (Retired solicitor).

Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church).

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).

Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of ‘The Firm’).

Dr Tessa Ransford OBE  (Poetry Practitioner and Adviser).

Mr James Robertson (Author).

Mr Kenneth Roy (Editor of ‘The Scottish Review’).

Dr David Stevenson (Retired medical specialist and Lockerbie commentator).

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Mr Terry Waite CBE (Former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hostage negotiator).