Further postponement of Lockerbie trial of Zwai and Obeidi

[The following report appeared on 19 March on the English language website of Libya TV:]

The Tripoli Court of Appeal have deferred prosecution of the former regime’s officials, Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai and Abdul Ati al-Obeidi until Monday 6th May.

The accused both face charges including of causing damage to public property, granting compensation to the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims, a total of US$2.7 billion.

The Head of Court called the adjournment to allow counsel for the accused of the defence submission, within 15 days of Monday’s meeting. [RB: I do not know what this means, but it may possibly refer to an opportunity being accorded to the defence to file a motion to dismiss the charges, something hinted at in some earlier reports.]

Relatives of both defendants attended the hearing, as did human rights experts, along with local and international media.

[Earlier items on this blog about the proceedings against Messrs Zwai and Obeidi can be found here.]

Libya delays Lockerbie verdict on Gaddafi ministers

[This is the headline over a report published today by the Agence France Presse news agency.  It reads as follows:]

A Libyan court on Monday postponed its verdict in the case of two officials from ousted dictator Moamer Kadhafi's regime accused of "financial crimes" connected to compensation for the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing.

Abdelati al-Obeidi, a former foreign minister, and Mohamed Belgassem al-Zwai, ex-speaker of parliament [RB: and ambassador in London], were accused of mismanaging public funds in compensating families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, according to charges read by the judge.

The criminal court in Tripoli postponed the verdict until June 17 "to allow more time to study the file," the judge said.

At a hearing in September, the jailed pair pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their lawyer argued that they had not made any personal gain and had negotiated on behalf of the authorities.

The prosecution has said Obeidi and Zwai were responsible for negotiating settlements with the Lockerbie families and had paid out double the amount originally planned in return for Libya's removal from a US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

In 2003, the Kadhafi regime officially acknowledged responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 people. [RB: No, Libya didn’t. Here is what it actually acknowledged.]  Libya paid 2.7 billion dollars (2.1 billion euros) in compensation to victims' families.

[This blog’s coverage of the proceedings against Messrs Zwai and Obeidi who, in my assessment -- and I met them on many occasions --, were two of the good guys in the Gaddafi regime, can be found here. I am shocked at their appearance in a photograph (last in the series) on the BBC News website.]

Some snippets from today's press

[From a letter in the Daily Telegraph:]

The Lockerbie bomber was tried by Scottish judges in a neutral country with the agreement of the Libyans. Why can't a similar arrangement be reached with Jordan regarding the trial of Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric (...)?

Then evidence can be monitored to ensure nothing obtained under torture is presented, and if found guilty the defendant can be sent to Jordan.

[From a report in the Belfast Telegraph:]

Victims of IRA terrorism should not expect direct compensation from the new Libyan government, a businessman with links to the country has warned.

However, Peter Lismore, chairman of the Libyan Irish Business Council, believes the country’s government will make a contribution to the International Fund of Ireland, or a new fund, as a gesture of goodwill. (...)

As part of its rapprochement with the west the Gaddafi regime made an “ex gratia” payment of $7.5m (£4.72m) to each of the families of the 270 people who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1998. [RB: The amount paid was $10m per family. The reduced amount mentioned above may reflect the contingency fee paid to the US law firm
Kreindler & Kreindler.]

That payment was authorised by Abdul Atti al-Obeidi, Prime Minister of Libya under Gaddafi. Mr al Obeidi was detained by rebel forces in August of last year. “He is now on trial for settling that claim; the charge is over-compensating the victims and wasting state funds,” Mr Lismore said.

“Al Obeidi could be released soon but these charges show the present regime’s attitude towards compensation compared to the previous regime.”

Libya 'granted oil concessions to BP on understanding Lockerbie bomber Megrahi would return home'

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

Libya's former foreign minister has said that Tripoli granted massive oil concessions to BP on the understanding the Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, would be returned home.

Abdulati al-Obeidi told the BBC that Britain had accepted Libyan indications that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release was an unwritten quid pro quo of the multi-billion pound contract. 

“There was a hint that releasing him would help but it was not a condition,” he said. “The Libyan side, and you know the British, they know how to take things”

Asked if an exchange of the prisoner was part of the talks, Mr Obeidi said: “This is what I think”.

BP secured one of the largest contracts to exploit Libyan oil reserves after Col Gaddafi’s regime came in from the cold. The contract was celebrated as part of Tony Blair’s infamous Deal in the Desert trip to Libya.

Last year BP admitted it pressed for a deal over the controversial prisoner transfer agreement amid fears any delays would damage its “commercial interests”, but denied it had been involved in negotiations concerning Megrahi’s release.

[Here is what I wrote on this blog on 28 January 2010:]

According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:

"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.

"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."

[Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.

Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published a news item on this issue which can be read here.]

Obeidi & Zwai acquitted, Dorda sentenced to death

[What follows is the text of a report published this afternoon on the Libya Herald website:]

As was widely expected, a court in Tripoli has sentenced Seif Al-Islam Qaddafi and Abdullah Senussi to death for war crimes during the 2011 revolution. Seven other senior member of the Qaddafi regime have also been given death sentences. They are:

• Former prime minister Al-Baghdadi Al-Mahmoudi;
• Abuzeid Dourda; former General Secretary of the General People’s Committee (effectively prime minister) then Qaddafi’s external intelligence chief;
• Mansur Dhou, head of Qaddafi’s Tripoli internal security agency;
• Milad Daman head of internal security;
• Abdulhamid Ohida, an assistant to Senussi;
• Awidat Ghandoor Noubi, responsible for Qaddafi’s Revolutionary Committees in Tripoli;
• Mundar Mukhtar Ghanaimi

Among the other former regime figures on trial, 23 were given jail terms from life imprisonment in the case of eight of the accused to five years for one of them. One person, Nuri Al-Jetlawi, was ordered to be detained at a psychiatric hospital while four were found innocent and freed: former foreign minister Abdulati Al–Obeidi, Ali Zway, Mohamed Al-Waher and Amer Abani.

In the case of Saif Al-Islam, who like Abdullah Senussi, was wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the guilty verdict and sentencing was effectively in absentia. He is being held in Zintan.

All those sentenced to death, as well as the others, have a right to appeal within 60 days. Even if there is no appeal, the sentences still have to be endorsed by the High Court. If the sentences are carried out in the case of Saif Al-Islam, Senussi and the other seven sentenced to death, execution ill be by firing squad.

The court proceedings, held at Hadba Al-Khadra prison, have attracted considerable criticism from Libyan and international human rights lawayers and activists. In the case of Saif Al-Islam, his British lawyer, John Jones, condemned it as “a show trial”. “The whole thing is illegitimate from start to finish… It’s judicially sanctioned execution”, he said.

The internationally recognised government in Beida has rejected the trial as unsafe.

[RB: I am delighted at the acquittal of Messrs Obeidi and Zwai, both of whom played an important and honourable part in resolving the Lockerbie impasse between Libya and the United Kingdom and United States. The conviction of and death sentence on Abuzed Dorda horrify me. As Libya’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations he also had a major rôle in the resolution of the issue. I met all of them on many occasions and found them entirely trustworthy and likeable.]

Gaddafi-era officials go on trial accused over Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over a report published today by the Reuters news agency.  It reads in part:]

Two senior officials under late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi went on trial on Monday accused of wasting public money by facilitating a compensation payment of more than $2 billion to families of those killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

The trial of the two men - former Foreign Minister Abdel-Ati al-Obeidi and former Secretary General of the General People's Congress [RB: and Libyan ambassador in London following restoration of diplomatic relations in 2001] Mohammed Zwai - was swiftly adjourned to give their legal team more time to prepare.

Zwai was the head of the legislature under Gaddafi, who was overthrown after an uprising last year and later killed.

Libya's new rulers, who aim to draw up a democratic constitution, are keen to try Gaddafi's family members and loyalists to show the country's citizens that those who helped Gaddafi stay in power for 42 years are being punished.

But human rights activists fret a weak central government and a relative lack of rule of law mean legal proceedings will not meet international standards.

The two men's appearance in the dock - 14 months after they were arrested - was brief.

"I refute these charges against me," Zwai told the court. Obedi also denied the charges.

The judge, whose name was not given, read out the charges against the duo, saying they were accused of arranging compensation worth $2.7 billion for the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing to try to get them to drop charges against Libya.

The 1988 bombing of a PanAm flight over Lockerbie in Scotland killed 270 people. Libyan Abdel Basset al-Meghrahi, who always denied involvement in downing the jet, was convicted of the bombing. He was released from jail in 2009 amid huge controversy in Britain and died of cancer in May.

Most but not all of the compensation was paid out by Libya on condition that U.N. sanctions against it were cancelled and U.S. trade sanctions against it lifted.

The judge said the two men's action was a crime because "the compensation was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made".

The judge adjourned the men's trial until October 15 after Mustafa Kishlaf, the defense lawyer, said he needed access to certain files and more time to study the case.

On Sunday, war-time interim Justice Minister Mohammed Al-Alagy told reporters that the current trials of Gaddafi-era officials were "invalid" because the prosecutor general's office was not following the necessary legal steps.

Under Libyan law, the Indictment Chamber reviews cases and then refers them to the appropriate court. But Alagy said prosecutors were bypassing this body and demanded they review their procedures and the legality of those held in custody.

Buzeid Dorda, a former intelligence chief and the first former senior official from the Gaddafi era to be put on trial in Libya, said in July he had been denied the right to meet privately with a lawyer and had been subjected to illegal interrogations during his 10 months in detention.

His trial, which began on June 5, has been adjourned several times since for procedural reasons.

[A report on the Libyan Mathaba website contains the following:]

The Tripoli Appeals Court today Monday postponed the trial of senior officials of the derailed Jamahiriya to consider the issue of the defendants Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai, Secretary of the General People's Congress of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, Secretary of External Communications at the Congress until the 15th October at the request of their lawyers.

This was followed by the trial judge citing charges against the two accused, by the public prosecutor for first in 2004 as public officials for harming public money by granting compensation to the families of the victims of the Pan Am flight 103 "Lockerbie" case, of over two thousand seven hundred million dollars (2.7 billion),  exceeded the ceiling granted to them in a weak and fake case, since Libya was not responsible.

The second charge concerned treason of the suspects in taking part in negotiations with the lawyers of the families of the victims and agreeing to pay the compensation in exchange for the lifting of the unjust sanctions imposed upon Libya, instead of demanding compensation for those sanctions, which is still outstanding, and to remove Libya from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, while knowing that lawyers are not authorised to negotiate the conditions mentioned above by the US administration, which resulted in harm to the public money as applicable in the articles 2/9 of Law No. 2 of 1979 on economic crimes and articles 183 and 76 of the Penal Code.

Both the accused during the hearing rejected charges brought against them by the trial judge, and asked their defense counsel for for the copies of some papers and documents of the court with a request for the release of those documents, which was met by an objection by the prosecution. The court decided in its second public meeting today to defer consideration of the charges at the request of the defendants to give them more time so as to enable the defense lawers to interview their clients in accordance with legal procedures applicable and to see all documents permitted.

[Further information regarding the Lockerbie role of Obeidi can be found on this blog here; of Zwai here; and of Dorda here.]

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.