Abdullah al-Senussi and Lockerbie

[The following is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Herald:]

Muammar Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and spymaster general was dramatically captured yesterday, just a day after the dictator’s son Saif was caught, in what were dubbed the “last acts” of a now-extinct regime.

Having both men in custody will boost hopes that they will reveal what they know about the Lockerbie bombing and other atrocities. 

The last stand of intelligence chief Abdullah al Senussi came as Libyan rebels insisted they would try Saif rather than transfer him to International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. Unlike the ICC, it is expected a Libyan court would have the power to impose the death penalty, and officials in the interim government yesterday indicated that was the punishment they would seek.

It is likely the rebels will also push for the death penalty for al Senussi, long known as Gaddafi’s brutal right-hand man and a hate figure for many in the country. (...)

A decade ago he was convicted in his absence in France of the 1989 bombing of a UTA passenger plane over Niger which killed 170 people. As a former head of the country’s intelligence services he is likely to face pressure to reveal what he knows about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people in died the worst terrorist atrocity over UK soil.

[A similar report in The Scotsman can be read here.  The following appears in a post of 17 May 2011 on this blog:]

In the 1980s, he headed Libya's external security organisation, in which capacity he was said to have recruited Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people were killed. Like Megrahi, Senussi is a member of the powerful Megarha tribe. He is also a cousin of Abdel-Salam Jalloud, one of Gaddafi's oldest comrades.

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's son Saif offers to 'hand himself in' to International Criminal Court

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Daily Mail.  It reads in part:]

Colonel Gaddafi’s favourite son  – Saif al-Islam – has offered to  ‘surrender’ to the International Criminal Court in The Hague in return for a guarantee of his safety, Libyan officials said.

The 39-year-old British-educated playboy has been on the run since the Nato airstrike on the city of Sirte last Thursday that led to his father’s capture and execution.

The offer of surrender raises the prospect of a trial in The Hague which could include new details of the background to the Lockerbie bombing and murder of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher.

But it could prove embarrassing as Saif was close to leading figures in the last Labour government, not least Tony Blair.

A senior official in the National Transitional Council, Abdel Majid Mlegta, said Saif and former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, the ousted tyrant’s brother-in-law, had been trying to broker a deal through a third country – believed to be Niger – to hand themselves in.

Senussi is said to have fled into Niger late last week and there were reports last night that Saif had also crossed into the country where hundreds of millions of pounds of Gaddafi’s smuggled money is held.

Saif and Senussi are wanted on ICC warrants for genocide and crimes against the Libyan people.

Commander Mlegta said the men believed ‘nowhere was safe’ for them. ‘They are proposing a way to hand themselves over to The Hague,’ he said. ‘They feel that it is not safe for them anywhere.’ (...)

Any court appearance by Saif would inevitably turn a spotlight on Britain’s attempts to foster a relationship with Gaddafi’s favoured son, who became the West’s ‘point man’ after Tony Blair signed the notorious ‘Deal in the Desert’ in March 2004.

Last year Saif described Mr Blair as a ‘personal family friend’ and said he had visited Libya ‘many, many times’ since leaving Downing Street. (...)

One Libyan official, quoted by Reuters, (...) said Saif’s escape was being masterminded by Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief Senussi, who is also wanted by the International Criminal Court.

Gaddafi-era Lockerbie officials go on trial in Tripoli

[The trial of thirty-seven Gaddafi-era officials on charges of murder, conspiracy to murder and human rights crimes during the revolution, opened yesterday in Tripoli. Most media reports have mentioned only one of the accused, Abdullah al-Senussi, Gaddafi’s intelligence chief and brother-in-law. However, the report in the Libya Herald refers to a number of other defendants:]

The Tripoli hearing was largely concerned with the formalities of establishing charges and identities. Along with Senussi who looked thin and gaunt, appearing to confirm his doctor’s claim that he has prostate cancer, the 36 accused appearing today included Qaddafi’s External Security Agency head Abu Zaid Omar Dorda, former Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the General People’s Conference head Mohamed al-Zway, former Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, and Tripoli Internal Security Agency head Mansour Dhou.

Unlike Senussi, Dorda, Obeidi and Zway have already made court appearances in Tripoli. Dorda’s case was adjourned on several occasions while Obeidi and Zway, who were arrested in July 2011, were found not guilty in June on charges of maladministration while in office and wasting public funds. (...)

At the end of two hours today, during which the defendants confirmed their names and the charges against them were read out, the pre-trial hearing was adjourned until 3 October. By then, the judge and his deputy ordered, defence lawyers must have reviewed their clients’ files and prepared their defences.

The proceedings were watched by a handful of foreign press reporters alongside local print and media journalists. Outside the court, there was a small protest by families of Busleem prison massacre victims, many with placards demanding that Senussi and others be hanged.  Security was high both inside and outside the courtroom, with local shops being asked to close up.

[Messrs Dorda, Obeidi and Zway were all heavily involved in the resolution of the Lockerbie impasse.  I had many meetings with all of them and always found them open, trustworthy and honest in their dealings with me.]

'Realistic possibility' of second Lockerbie bombing trial

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the STV News website. It reads in part:]

Scotland's chief law officer believes there is a "realistic possibility" of a second trial over the murder of 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing.

Scottish and American investigators announced last year that they had identified two Libyans as suspects over the 1988 atrocity but since then very little has been said publicly about the case.

In an interview with STV News to mark his departure from the post after five years, lord advocate Frank Mulholland QC discussed the prospect of fresh prosecutions over Britain's biggest mass murder.

"I've been to Tripoli twice," said. "I've established good relations with the law enforcement attorney general in Libya.

"We're currently at a stage where there are a number of outstanding international letters of request, one of which is seeking the permission of the Libyan authorities to interview two named individuals as suspects.

"Following all the work that's been going on, and it's been painstaking, it's taken some time, it does take time.

"I hope that the Libyans will grant permission for that to be done. I obviously can't say too much publicly but a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to make that happen.

"What I hope is that this will bear fruit and we can take it to the next stage of seeking the extradition of the two named individuals."

Last October, it was announced the lord advocate and the US attorney general had agreed there was "a proper basis in law" to treat the two Libyans as suspects.

The two men were not named by the Scottish or US authorities but they are Abdullah Senussi, Colonel Gaddafi's former intelligence chief, and Abouajela Masud.

Both are being held in jails in Libya - Senussi is appealing against a death sentence while Masud is serving ten years for bomb making. (...)

Asked if there was any realistic possibility of Senussi being surrendered for trial, Frank Mulholland replied: "Before I embarked on this work I was told that there was no possibility, absolutely none, of the Libyans cooperating with law enforcement in Scotland or the United States. That happened.

"In 2011, I attended a ceremony in Arlington where the Libyan ambassador to the US made a public commitment on behalf of the Libyan government to help. They have kept their word. They have helped.

"I said it takes time, and it will take time, and that's certainly something which we are used to in relation to the Lockerbie inquiry.

"If we get to the stage of seeking the extradition of two named individuals or indeed more persons, I think there's a realistic possibility that there could be a further trial."

The two men are suspected of bringing down Pan Am 103 while acting along with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who remains the only person convicted of the bombing.

He died protesting his innocence after being released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government. A high-profile campaign to clear his name continues.

The lord advocate acknowledged any new Lockerbie trial would involve a public re-examination of the disputed evidence from Megrahi's.

"I don't fear that," he said. "I think that's a good thing. Without seeking to comment on what the outcome would be, I think the evidence would stand up to a further test.

"We wouldn't be doing this unless we thought that the evidence was sufficiently credible and reliable to have them interviewed as suspects, I think that's the best way to put it."

For many years after the bombing it seemed extremely unlikely there would ever be prosecutions over Lockerbie.

Eventually a diplomatic deal paved the way for the first trial to go ahead in a specially-convened Scottish court sitting at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

Frank Mulholland first raised the hope that the collapse of Gaddafi's regime could allow Scottish police to visit Libya back in 2011.

He is the first British or American official to publicly express the belief that a second trial could happen, albeit with carefully chosen words.

[RB: In my view the chances of either Senussi or Masud being extradited to stand trial for the Lockerbie bombing are precisely zero. I would, however, be delighted to be proved wrong since, as Frank Mulholland concedes, that would inevitably subject to further scrutiny the evidence that led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi -- a scrutiny that that evidence could not survive.]

Lockerbie raised in the House of Lords

[Two days ago I posted an item based on a news agency report about a question and answer on Lockerbie in the House of Lords.  The full Hansard report of the exchange is now available.  It reads as follows:]

Asked By Lord Selkirk of Douglas:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will continue to make representations to the National Transitional Council of Libya to make available any evidence in their possession concerning the attack on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 to the Lord Advocate and the Scottish police to assist their investigation.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya's newly formed transitional Government about getting the Dumfries and Galloway police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The National Transitional Council chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other ongoing investigations.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: While I welcome the Minister's statement, does he believe that the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi's intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, and of the intelligence archives in Tripoli, may finally provide the vital information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries? I ask this question as one of the two former Ministers who were at the crime scene within a few hours and who met some of the relatives shortly afterwards. In order to bring closure to the families of 270 victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what happened 23 years ago, and precisely what the background was to this monstrous crime?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes, it is desirable and yes, indeed, it was the most monstrous crime. We are seeking confirmation from the Libyan Government regarding the reported detention of Abdullah al-Senussi. We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice. Al-Senussi's arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime's dreadful crimes. As I just said, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to it and indeed to the Lord Advocate. I am confident that the new Libyan Government will act in accordance with Chairman Jalil's commitment to co-operate with the UK on this and other investigations, and bring closure to the concerns and misery of the families of the victims.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would also shed light on this matter if the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission were published in full, so far as is possible?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Of course, there has been the report of Sir Gus O'Donnell. It has been placed in the Library and it was fully discussed when it was produced some weeks ago. Further light needs to be shed on this and I am confident that, with the full assistance of the new Libyan Government, we will get the papers and the evidence to show exactly what was said and by whom.

Lord Empey: My Lords, can the Minister tell us that in addition to pursuing the issue of Lockerbie, the Government will rigorously and vigorously pursue the issue of compensation for all UK victims who were damaged by weapons supplied to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime and that the Government themselves will lead those negotiations rather than leaving them to third parties?

Lord Howell of Guildford: At present we are looking at all possible options with the Libyan Government to get a resolution on the legacy issues, including this one, which is certainly a very high priority. It is very early days for the new Libyan Government as they have only just been appointed, but we want to see a broad proposal for embracing questions of compensation, reconciliation and, indeed, investment in Northern Ireland. We are trying to develop a broad approach with, and led by, the Libyan Government.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is utterly natural and inevitable that parliaments the world over should seek to have as much light as possible cast upon the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing? However, technically speaking, a request should be made formally by the Scottish Parliament themselves-bearing in mind, of course, the transfer of jurisdiction in relation to that. As for this Parliament, could the same principle not also apply to casting light upon those who were responsible for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher?

Lord Howell of Guildford: On the second point about WPC Yvonne Fletcher, that is most certainly so. We are in touch with the Metropolitan Police about reopening their investigations into the perpetrators of that hideous crime. On the former question, the decision was made by the devolved Scottish Government and it is a matter for them to pursue. We have indicated that the Government in London will give full assistance to the devolved Government in pursuing their inquiries.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?

Lord Howell of Guildford: We have passed a request from the devolved Administration to the Libyan chargé d'affaires in London asking that the supervision arrangements of Al Megrahi's licence are observed. Part of the investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway police will also embrace the question of his condition, but we are awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government now.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request to the National Transitional Council and that a statement has been issued by the Crown Office to the effect that the trial court of Mr Al Megrahi accepted that he did not act alone?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am not sure that I can comment on my noble friend's second point, but it is certainly correct that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request, and indeed has made that absolutely clear to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We are collaborating closely on this.

Libya's judges confront the past

[This is the headline over an interesting article by Mohamed Eljarh published yesterday in the Transitions blog on the website of the influential Foreign Policy magazine.  It reads in part:]

Ever since the revolution, Libyans have been waiting to see how the court system is going to settle accounts with Qaddafi-era officials. Now the first verdict has finally arrived -- but it clearly wasn't what a lot of people were expecting.

A Libyan court in Tripoli has acquitted two former officials in Colonel Qaddafi's regime of wasting public money by spending $2.7 billion on payments to the families of those killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

Ex-Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi and Mohamed al-Zwai, the former head of Qaddafi's legislature, stood accused of arranging compensation for the families of victims of the attack. The two men were trying to persuade the survivors to drop their claims against Libya. The prosecution had charged that Obeidi and Zwai were responsible for negotiating settlements with the Lockerbie families and had paid out double the amount originally planned.

This would be the first verdict in a number of cases against key figures in the old Qaddafi regime by the new Libyan government following his killing in 2011. Despite being acquitted in this case, both men will remain in custody while further investigations take place ahead of a wider trial in August, where allegations of war crimes, including mass killings and incitement to rape, will be put to the court, according to state prosecutor al-Seddik al-Sur. Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi are among the defendants in this wider trial.

While the families of the two officials celebrated the innocent verdict and expressed their happiness with the Libyan judiciary, the public prosecutor was quick to announce a new trial and took measures to ensure that the two officials will in custody, emphasizing that the Lockerbie-related charges are a "side case." The judge gave no reasons for his verdict after the trial, which lasted seven months. The two officials were tried under Qaddafi-era laws.

Many Libyans are cautiously celebrating what they claim to be "the independence of the judiciary." However, after the court's verdict some prominent Facebook pages and groups (mainly pro-isolation law and pro-militias) started calling for the cleansing of the judiciary, claiming that the revolution has yet to happen within the judicial establishment in Libya. They claim that the current judicial establishment will find Saif al-Islam and Abdullah al-Senussi innocent, and that the judges affected by the isolation process will hamper the implementation of the isolation law. The fear of attacks on the judiciary and the justice system could explain the quick announcement by the country's public prosecutor that the two acquitted officials will remain in custody as his office prepares for these broader proceedings.

However, many in Libya called the trial a "waste of time." Claiming that the Saif al-Islam and al-Senussi have yet to stand trial, and that these "side cases" are just used by the authorities to buy them time as they keep delaying the trials of the key crimes committed by the former regime. The general sentiment between Libyans is that the authorities have failed to facilitate or build any substantial cases against many of the ex-regime officials, and that the evidence required to convict them is not available. (...)

Lawyers for Justice in Libya expressed concern at the increase in attacks on judges and lawyers in Libya. Most recently, a senior judge from the eastern city of Albaida was shot dead in a drive-by shooting in front of the local courthouse in Derna last Sunday.

Moreover, the legitimacy and independence of the judiciary in Libya is compromised by its lack of autonomy and by interference from the General National Congress (Libya's interim legislature). Judges throughout Libya have condemned the recent Political Isolation Law, and some have gone on strike because it targets the judiciary. An appeal by more than 60 judges and lawyers against the law has been submitted to the Supreme Court. They argue that the judiciary should be independent and that the isolation law violates the principle of the separation of powers among the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judiciary). The judges stress that any reform within the judicial establishment should come from within, that it should be based on consultation with the legislative and executive branches of government, and that it should not imposed by one or the other.

In post-revolution Libya, the process of judicial institutionalization is constantly undermined by political instability and the lack of security as well as by the struggle for power between the different factions in the absence of the constitution. Ensuring the independence of the judiciary and security of its personnel is of vital importance for Libya's transition. Ultimately, the absence of security for justice sector personnel has led and will continue to lead to indefinite delays in the processing of the cases of ex-regime officials and conflict-related detainees.

US "interested" in what Senussi has to say about Lockerbie

[The US State Department daily press briefing on 19 March 2012 conducted by spokesperson Victoria Nuland contains the following exchange:]

QUESTION: Okay. Just on the capture over the weekend of Mr Senussi, I’m just wondering if you can tell us if the US has any interest in talking to him about potential connections with Lockerbie. Are you in contact with the Mauritanians, seeking either to get access to him there or to figure out where he’s going to go next, given the number of requests for his extradition?

MS NULAND: Well, first of all, to say that Abdullah al-Senussi’s capture in Mauritania is a crucial step towards justice and accountability, and another welcome step away from the dark 40-year history of Libya. As you know, he’s been accused of crimes against humanity and acts of terrorism, and the international community has been very clear that he needs to be held to account.

We are in contact with the Government of Mauritania about him. I’m not going to speak any further about what we may or may not be consulting about in that context. But as you know, both Libya and the Government of France have asked for extradition of him, the French Government in connection with a terrorist – the terrorist incident with UTA; the Libyans, for obvious reasons.

So we want to see him brought to justice and we will – right now we have a Libyan delegation in Mauritania, so we’ll see where those contacts go.

QUESTION: Are you able to say whether or not the US Government regards him as a person of interest in connection with the Lockerbie case?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’ve always been interested in what he has to say about that, of course.

QUESTION: But you’re not – you can’t say whether or not you’re actually trying to get him to tell US Government officials what he might know?

MS. NULAND: I’m not in a position to speak about whether we will be involved at all, but obviously the Mauritanians are cooperating with everybody who has an interest in him.

Libya minister says Lockerbie case is 'closed'

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

The new Libyan government has said that in its eyes the Lockerbie affair is a closed case and that now is not the time to dwell on the "past".

"The matter was settled with the Gaddafi regime. I am trying to work on the current situation rather than dig into the past," said Salah al-Marghani, the justice minister.

Hameda al-Magery, his deputy, said: "Britain and America are asking us to reopen this file. But this is something of the past. This is over. We want to move forward to build a new future and not to look back at Gaddafi's black history. This case was closed and both UK and US governments agreed to this. They had their compensation."

The development comes as British police conduct inquiries in Libya for the first time in an attempt to restart the investigation into the 1988 bombing that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland, killing 270 people.

David Cameron said last month he was "delighted" that detectives from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary were going to the Libyan capital. The American government has also shown renewed interest in the case. Senior officials in the Libyan government have told The Daily Telegraph that they had been receiving regular visits from US diplomats.

One official said that the diplomats had sought permission to restart the Lockerbie investigation "from scratch". But these ambitions are likely to be frustrated by the lack of desire on the part of the Libyan authorities to reopen old wounds.

In 2003 the Libyan government paid $2.16 billion (£1.43 billion) in compensation to the families of the Lockerbie victims [RB: Most other sources give the figure as $2.7 billion], and Ahmed Own, Libya's then ambassador to the United Nations, submitted a letter to the Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" over the Lockerbie bombing.

The settlement came as part of an exchange for the removal of UN sanctions.

Today, the Libyan government is reticent about the reopening of the case, a position that comes from a fear that Britain and the US will use any new investigation as a way to demand further financial compensation, though officials admit this issue has not yet been broached.

A well-placed Libyan official said: "The Americans want to sue our government directly over Lockerbie. But this case has been closed and Americans had their compensation on that. We know they want more money from Libya and that is why we are being very careful."

Only one person has been convicted for the Lockerbie bombing. In 2001, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for the attack. In August 2009, the Scottish government released him on compassionate grounds after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Al-Megrahi proclaimed that he was innocent up to his death in May 2012.

Although Gaddafi accepted responsibility for the actions of his officials, he claimed he was not guilty of ordering the attack.

The man who may hold further answers to Lockerbie is Abdullah Senussi, a former Libyan intelligence chief now in a Tripoli jail. 

Britain and America, as part of separate inquiries, are both likely to want access to the man often called the "black box" of Libya's dictatorship.

When asked if Lockerbie investigators would be given access to Mr Senussi, Mr Marghani said that Libya and Britain had a "good relationship", but that "it is all legal issues, when it comes to investigations and police and courts you don't just walk in and start investigating things".

Other government officials have privately said that there was "no way" they would be allowed to speak directly to Mr Senussi.  They added that it was a matter of "national pride" and showing Libya's prowess as a sovereign state that they should not bow quickly to foreign demands.

Mr Marghani said: "Facts are important, so if there are any facts that someone wants to tell us about we will listen."

Mr Magery, added: "If they want to reopen the case, they have to agree to do it properly. For example, they have to promise not to ask for more compensation."

Libya's government also faces pressure from its own people not to reopen the case. The payment of such a huge settlement at a time when many believed there was not conclusive evidence that Libya was responsible for the terrorist attack caused a public outpouring of anger.

The transfer of the financial settlement is one of the charges listed against at least two former regime officials who are now in jail accused of "wasting public funds".

"Even if the government did want to open it they would face opposition from the local people. There would be protests in the streets," said one official in the Libyan Supreme Court.

[A shorter report in The Independent can be read here and one from the Daily Mail here.]

“Is this an American attempt to influence the judges?"

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of The Press and Journal:]

The FBI agent who led the original Lockerbie investigation has revealed the atrocity’s latest suspect was on his “radar” 30 years ago but there was a struggle to prove the case against him.

Richard Marquise said it was strongly suspected Abu Agila Mohammad Masud was the “technician” responsible for the bomb that killed 270 people in the worst terrorist outrage committed on UK territory.

Mr Marquise was reacting to reports suggesting that US prosecutors will seek the extradition of Mr Masud and he will be charged in a matter of days, to stand trial in America.

As the man who led the US side of the inquiry into the bombing, Mr Marquise welcomed reports that Mr Masud could face justice, claiming any progress would be appreciated by the families who lost loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103.

“If there is going to be another trial, I’m sure the families will be… I’m not going to use the word thrilled…. because it doesn’t bring a loved one back. But I am sure they will be grateful,” Mr Marquise said. (...)

“He’s been on my radar for around 30 years,” Mr Marquise said. “He was someone we were very interested in, but we never quite found out who he was. The Libyans disavowed any knowledge of him. We knew he existed but he was never really identified.

“Back in 1991, we knew his name. We knew what he looked like and we knew what he allegedly was responsible for. He was the technician.”

The retired FBI agent added: “In my mind I always felt he was connected to it somehow But we didn’t have the clues to prove it.”

Kenny MacAskill, the former Justice Secretary who controversially released Megrahi on compassionate grounds, agreed.

“He was the one with the skills. He was on the original indictment, I’m led to believe. So he was always a wanted man,” Mr MacAskill said. “The idea that Megrahi did this on his own was absurd.”

Reports from the other side of the Atlantic suggest Mr Masud had been in custody in Libya on unrelated charges but his current whereabouts are unknown.

Since Mr Marquise’s official involvement in the investigation, there have been some developments. At the forefront of these have been the work of Ken Dornstein, a journalist whose brother David was on the London to New York flight.

In 2015 Mr Dornstein produced a investigative documentary, Lockerbie: My Brother’s Bomber, which linked Mr Masud to the bombing of Berlin’s La Belle nightclub in 1986.

Mr Dornstein interviewed a Libyan intelligence officer who said Mr Masud was involved in the bombing before the unification of Germany, which killed two US servicemen.

The same source alleged Mr Masud, by then in jail in Tripoli, was involved in the Lockerbie bombing and said he was still alive.

Mr Dornstein also claimed Mr Masud met Megrahi after the latter was freed from a Scottish jail in 2009 and given a hero’s welcome when he landed back in Libya. (...)

Mr MacAskill has already made it plain that he believes that people other than Megrahi should be held to account for the bombing.

“Question arise as to why, if they are going for Masud, aren’t they going for Senussi?” asked the former Justice Secretary. 

Mr MacAskill was referring to Abdullah Al Senussi, the late Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and former spy chief who has long been associated with the crime. (...)

“I heard over recent years the view of the Libyans was they don’t like Senussi and they don’t like Masud, but giving them up to the Americans is a step too far,” Mr MacAskill said.

“I think this is probably the juncture for Britain and America to be a bit more open in information they do have and produce it, as opposed to hiding it.”

What can be read into the timing of Masud’s extradition?

That is an interesting question, according to Professor Robert Black, an the Edinburgh University legal academic who has been a keen student of the Lockerbie case.

Professor Black is regarded as the architect of the Scottish court that was set up in Camp Zeist, Netherlands, to try Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was found not guilty.

“I wonder…. why now?” asked Professor Black. “Masud’s name has featured in the Lockerbie case since the very beginning, when charges were brought against Megrahi and Fhimah in 1991.”

“I think the answer to that is William Barr, the US Attorney General, is wanting to go out with a bang.”

This week it was announced that Mr Barr, who has been one of Donald Trump’s staunchest allies, is to step down as head of the US’s Justice Department.

Professor Black pointed out that Mr Barr was actually acting Attorney General way back in 1991 and was the one to announce that Megrahi and Fhimah were being charged.

“Now that he’s about to leave the scene, I think he wants to go out and his name to be remembered: Lockerbie at the beginning and Lockerbie at the end,” Professor Black said. (...)

Professor Black, who has long argued that Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence brought before Camp Zeist, suggested cynics might view attempts to extradite Musad as an attempt to make an impact on the appeal process.

“The other possibility is that it is a blatant attempt to influence the Scottish judges because they have got the latest Megrahi appeal before them and we await their judgement,” Professor Black said.

The argument would be that the existence of another high-profile Libyan suspect, alongside Megrahi, would back up the case for Libyan involvement in the crime.

“Is this an American attempt to influence the judges to uphold the Megrahi conviction? That’s a very, very cynical view.”

But cynicism was how the development was greeted by Megrahi family’s lawyer, Aamer Anwar.

“It’s difficult not to be cynical about the motivation of the Americans, that on the eve of the anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing as well as the appeal decision, the US now wish to indict an individual, 32 years after the bombing, what exactly have they been doing up until now?” said Mr Anwar

“Why would the Attorney General William Barr wait until just as he is about to step down from the Justice Department, considering that he was involved with this case since 1991.”

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi maintains innocence

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

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man convicted over the Lockerbie bombing, maintained his innocence as recently as three years ago, according to a letter seen in Libya's intelligence headquarters.

In a private letter from Megrahi, he told Abdullah al-Senussi, a close Col Muammar Gaddafi aide: "I am an innocent man".

The letter, seen by The Wall Street Journal, was apparently written in late 2007 or early 2008, while he was serving a life sentence in Scotland.

He blamed his conviction on "fraudulent information that was relayed to investigators by Libyan collaborators", as well as "the immoral British and American investigators".

He also criticises a Maltese clothes merchant who told his trial that he purchased clothes from him that were found in the suitcase that contained the bomb that brought down PanAm Flight 103. He also asks Mr Senussi to send regards to "our big brother", Col Gaddafi.

[A report published this afternoon on the Newsnet Scotland website contains the following:]

A letter discovered in the offices of Libya’s former Intelligence Chief Abdullah al-Senussi appears to cast more doubt on claims that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie atrocity.

In the letter, written by the Libyan when he was still in Greenock prison, Megrahi insists he is innocent of the crime and blames his conviction on “fraudulent information”. (...)

If authentic then the letter will undermine the current claims from many Scottish media commentators who, since the discovery of Megrahi dying in his family home, are insisting that the Libyan knew more about Lockerbie.

It also calls into question the role of Libya itself in the atrocity given that the letter was addressed to the head of Gaddafi’s Intelligence Services who, had the state been involved in the downing of Pan Am 103, would have certainly been in a position to know that Megrahi was innocent or not.