“BP lobbied and the UK government jumped"

[Alex Salmond’s book The Dream Shall Never Die: 100 Days That Changed Scotland Forever has not been kindly reviewed in what in Scotland is increasingly referred to as “the mainstream media” (overwhemingly -- and, in many cases, virulently -- unionist). An even-handed, if far from hagiographic, review is to be found on the website of The Conversation. Here are two paragraphs:]

Salmond gives his version of the story of how BP intervened in the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi, the Scottish government’s most controversial decision during Salmond’s period as first minister.

Salmond confirms the indications in the UK cabinet office review in 2011 that BP’s intervention to protect oil contracts led to the UK government being unwilling to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries. “BP lobbied and the UK government jumped,” writes Salmond.

Megrahi and Fhimah placed on FBI Ten Most Wanted list

[What follows is a brief excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi:]

In November 1991, Megrahi and Fhimah were indicted by the US Attorney General and the Scottish Lord Advocate for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Libya refused to extradite the two accused, but held them under armed house arrest in Tripoli, offering to detain them for trial in Libya, as long as all the incriminating evidence was provided. The offer was unacceptable to the US and UK, and there was an impasse for the next three years.

On 23 March 1995, over six years after the 1988 attack, Megrahi and Fhimah were designated as United States fugitives from justice and became the 441st and 442nd additions on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. This list offered a US $4 million reward from the US Air Line Pilots Association, Air Transport Association, and United States Department of State, and $50,000 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for information leading to their arrest.

The parties eventually agreed on a compromise and a trial was held in the Netherlands under Scots law. The trial format was engineered by legal academic Professor Robert Black of the University of Edinburgh and was given political impetus by the then British foreign secretary, Robin Cook.

Protracted negotiations with the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the imposition of UN economic sanctions against Libya brought the two accused to trial in a neutral country. Over ten years after the bombing, Megrahi and Fhimah were placed under arrest at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands on 5 April 1999. During his seven-year house arrest awaiting deportation and trial, Megrahi lived on a Libyan Arab Airlines pension and worked as a teacher.

[RB: A reward of "up to $5 million” is still on offer under the US Rewards for Justice scheme “for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of those responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and the murders of the 270 victims”.]

"Frankly speaking I am not convinced"

[What follows is the text of an article by Steve James published on this date in 2002 on the World Socialist Web Site:]

Five senior Scottish judges at Camp Zeist, the Netherlands, have thrown out the appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi against his conviction, January 2001 for the mass murder of 270 people killed at Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. Al-Megrahi has now been transported to Glasgow’s notorious Barlinnie prison, where a special wing has been built for him to serve his 20-year sentence.

Scotland’s leading legal officials have fully defended a conviction based on flimsy and contested circumstantial evidence that has been criticised by several observers as a miscarriage of justice. One of five United Nations observers to the Lockerbie trial, Hans Koechler has previously criticised the initial verdict. Having sat through the entire trial and the appeal, he told BBC Radio Scotland, “I am sorry to admit that my impression is that justice was not done and that we are dealing here with a rather spectacular case of a miscarriage of justice... Frankly speaking I am not convinced. I was not convinced when I read the opinion of the court after the trial last year and I was not convinced when I went through the text presented today. I am not convinced at all that the sequence of events that led to this explosion of the plane over Scotland was as described by the court. Everything that is presented is only circumstantial evidence.” Koechler said he believed other members of the UN team shared his concerns.

Speaking later, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the explosion said, “We think there has been miscarriage of justice. Thank God that Britain does not have the death penalty.” Swire reiterated the long-standing call of several relatives of Lockerbie victims for a public inquiry “that has real authority” to be convened.

Professor Robert Black, the lawyer who has worked closely with the relatives for many years and the architect of the trial process itself, also described the trial as a miscarriage of justice. He told The Scotsman, “We have not seen the end of this case... There is a hell of lot of more evidence that appeared neither at the trial or the appeal.”

In contrast to the alarm felt by close observers of the trial, many of Scotland’s leading politicians showed an indecent haste to support an appeal decision they can hardly have had the time to read.

Scottish Justice Minister Jim Wallace claimed, “Everyone will have breathed a collective sigh of relief at the decision of the appeal judges.” Scottish National Party justice spokesman Roseanna Cunningham announced, “This unique trial has shown the Scottish justice system to be robust and effective in the eyes of the world—right from the actions of the police officers investigating the immediate aftermath of this terrible crime up to today’s verdict.”

Based on the evidence presented at the Lockerbie trial and the subsequent appeal, it is impossible to say with certainty which persons, movements or governments were responsible for the destruction of Pan Am flight 103. Libya could have been responsible for the bombing, but a number of alternative scenarios have been presented—from the involvement of Palestinian groups to direct allegations of CIA involvement. What has become clear is that the assertion that al-Megrahi planted the bomb in Luqa airport in Malta that blew up PA103 is based on deeply problematic circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the case against him is contradicted by somewhat stronger circumstantial evidence pointing to the bomb’s insertion into the plane at Frankfurt or Heathrow airports.

Despite this, in a 200-page verdict, the five judges, led by Lord Cullen, rejected all but the most minor of the appeal team’s questioning of the numerous holes in the prosecution case. Explaining their decision, the appeal judges’ claimed they had no right to comment on the initial verdict. Where some comment became unavoidable, they always defended the trial judges’ line of reasoning, on the basis it was not for an appeal to re-evaluate the original evidence. In only a small number of instances they accepted there might have been mistakes, but insisted that these errors had no impact on the final outcome.

The appeal court concluded that new evidence, highlighted in the press, that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport, near the luggage area, the night before PA103 took off for New York, had no bearing on the verdict. While the court accepted there had been a break-in, there was a significant degree of confusion over the movement and positioning of cases that answered the description of the Samsonite suitcase supposedly containing the bomb, and that there was evidence suggesting that it had arrived in a luggage container by unknown means, it concluded that this did not constitute circumstantial evidence strong enough to overcome the assertion that the bomb case was loaded at Luqa.

The appeal court accepted that the judges misdirected themselves when they stated that the records showing 13.10 as the time when luggage destined for PA103 (a feeder flight from Frankfurt to London) was processed. The appeal judges agreed that they had no basis to prefer this to the 13.16 suggested as an alternative time by the defence—the record itself is difficult to read. Flights from several aircraft were being processed at Frankfurt at the time, and a six-minute difference significantly increases the window through which luggage from flights other than KM180 from Luqa in Malta could have been processed for transfer to PA103A. The judges found that in the end, nothing could be concluded from this and “the misdirection... had no material consequences to the appellant’s interest.”

The judges considered the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who provided the only visual identification of al-Megrahi as having been associated with clothes that were found, charred, at the crash site, and were thought to be in the same suitcase as the bomb. Gauci’s evidence was upheld despite numerous discrepancies over the date, time, weather, which football matches were on the television and even whether or not Christmas decorations were up. No significance was attached to the fact that Gauci had previously identified a member of a Palestinian group, Abu Talb, currently serving a sentence for bomb attacks for which he does not deny responsibility.

What is undeniable is that there were significant political pressures on the court to uphold the initial trial verdict, whatever evidence was presented in al-Megrahi’s defence.

Libya has been the focus of US-inspired sanctions and sustained aggression for 16 years. In 1990, blame for the Lockerbie attack was shifted by the Scottish investigating authorities and the US government to Libya and away from the countries initially targeted for suspicion such as Iran and Syria. At the time, Iranian and Syrian acquiescence in the first US attack on Iraq in 1991 was considered imperative. Indeed, US Secretary of State James Baker had been shuttling around the region prior to the sudden discovery of evidence supposedly linking the attack to Libya.

In the intervening years, Lockerbie has been continually utilised to justify US and UN sanctions against Libyan “state terrorism”. As a result successive administrations have invested a great deal of political capital in their insistence that Libya was responsible for the bombing.

However, relations with Libya have improved in recent years as Colonel Gaddafi has made repeated overtures to the Western powers. In Britain, the election victory of Tony Blair in 1997 was seen as a chance to remove the main political obstacle to renewed friendly relations with a country whose oil reserves its European rivals were exploiting.

A limited trial of the two defendants—al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah—was offered, provided that more general attacks on Libya were downplayed. The US government was reluctant to agree to such a compromise, but was eventually persuaded. American business was also anxious to exploit Libyan oil, and was caught in the contradiction created by years of anti-Libya propaganda and the lust for oil profit. There was also concern that some of the secret activities of the CIA and FBI would be exposed to public scrutiny and US intelligence operatives sat on the prosecution benches through much of the trial proceedings in order to offset this danger. Even so, the CIA’s “star witness” in the case, Abdul Majid Giacka, was exposed as a fraud and the case against the two accused Libyans suffered repeated setbacks.

The verdict against al-Megrahi—his alleged sole accomplice Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah was acquitted—was the minimum requirement for the US. Libyan guilt and compensation payments to victims, already agreed by Gaddaffi, provided retrospective justification for years of punitive sanctions. At the same time the relatively low-key conclusion—with just one person deemed to be directly responsible—would allow Conoco, Marathon, Amerada Hess, and Occidental to develop a lucrative relationship with the Libyan National Oil Corporation.

Minister's Lockerbie press briefing leads to the chop

On this date in 1989 a debate was held in the House of Commons as part of the fallout from media reports following the “lobby terms” lunch briefing on the Lockerbie investigation given by Margaret Thatcher’s Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, to five political correspondents on 16 March. The Hansard report of this debate (on a private notice question from the Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock) can be read here. While a handful of Conservative MPs offered somewhat tepid support to Mr Channon, the bulk of those who participated -- Labour, Liberal Democrat (particularly Paddy Ashdown) and Scottish National Party (particularly Jim Sillars) -- were utterly scathing. The wounds to the Secretary of State were politically fatal. He limped on until 24 July 1989 when he was sacked by Mrs Thatcher.

The beginning of the end of UK/US blocking of neutral venue trial

[On this date in 1998, the United Nations Security Council held its first public session on Lockerbie since 1992. The report on the proceedings by the IPS news agency reads as follows:]

UN diplomats, and the families of victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, cannot agree on how to try two Libyans suspected of involvement in that attack, a UN Security Council debate made clear Friday.

For Libya, the intensified discussion here marks a qualified victory: for the first time, the doubts over UN efforts to compel Triploi to hand over Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah for a US and British trial are being aired here at length. In addition, Libyan pleas for a neutral trial and for the easing of some aspects of the sanctions are gaining wider support.

The debate, the first public review of Council sanctions imposed on Libya in 1992, was marked both by the efforts by several diplomats to find a compromise solution for the trial of the Libyans, and the heated resistance from the US government and families of the bombing victims to anything less than a trial in Britain or the United States.

On the one hand, Libya could be cheered by increasing support for the adoption of several humanitarian exemptions to a six-year-old flight ban imposed by the Council, and for a trial of the two suspects at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague. An ICJ ruling last month even bolstered calls by some diplomats for the suspension of all UN sanctions.

On the other, Washington and London remain adamantly opposed to any trial outside of the United States or Britain. These two countries were most directly affected by the 1988 bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, of the 270 victims, 189 were US citizens and 11 were residents of Lockerbie.

“There is little hope of seeing suffering end until Libya complies with the resolutions of the Security Council ... and turns over the two suspects,” insisted US Ambassador Bill Richardson.

Other ambassadors, however, used the debate Friday to make their most public call for a compromise solution. “The proposal by Libya for her two suspected nationals to be tried under Scottish law by Scottish judges in a third country or at the ICJ should now receive the Council’s serious consideration so that the matter can be resolved equitably,” argued Ambassador Martin Andjaba of Namibia.

The dispute in the Security Council in turn has been mirrored in recent months by the growing rift between the families of the flight victims, with one British group leaning towards the ICJ compromise while two major US groups reject it.

“Libya’s problems can be solved by turning over the suspects to the United States or Scotland for a fair and impartial trial, in full view of the rest of the world,” argued George Williams, president of the US-based ’Victims of Pan Am Flight 103’. “This is not a negotiable issue.”

“This is the time for compromise. This is not the time to be bombastic,” countered Jim Swire, spokesman for ’UK Families Flight 103’, which represents the estimated 35 British nationals who were victims. “We’re not into politics. All we really want is a fair trial, and the venue doesn’t really matter.”

Libya contends that US and British public opinion on the case is so tainted as to prohibit a fair trial in either country. “We would like to recall that the trial of Timothy McVeigh (sentenced to death for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing) was transferred from Oklahoma City to Colorado... because the place in which the crime was committed no longer provided a place where there are the conditions needed for due process of law and a fair trial for the defendants,” argued Libyan Foreign Minister Omar Mustafa Muntasser on Friday.

Muntasser called for the suspension or lifting of the UN sanctions, noting that the ICJ ruling last month had rendered the Security Council demands for a US or British trial irrelevant and moot, since the Court has accepted jurisdiction in the matter on which the resolutions were based.

The Feb 27 ruling, presided over by ICJ Vice President Justice Chris Weeramantry, strengthens Tripoli’s argument for a trial at the Hague. It found Libyan claims that neither the United States nor Britain has the right to compel Tripoli to turn over the two suspects admissible, and said that the Court could now proceed to hear the merits of Libya’s case.

Whether the decision can actually help to overturn the Security Council’s sanctions ruling is doubtful. Britain and the United States both hold vetoes on the 15-nation Council and remain unwilling to drop the penalties until Libya complies with their terms.

Richardson argued that the ICJ ruling “in no way question(s) the legality of the Security Council’s actions affecting Libya or the merits of the criminal cases against the two accused suspects.” He also disputed Libya’s claims that al-Megrahi and Fhimah could not obtain a fair trial in Scotland, noting a recent UN report which concluded that “the accused would receive a fair trial under the Scottish judicial system.”

British Ambassador John Weston noted dryly that Muntasser had assailed the media in Britain for prejudicing the mood against the two suspects—but that the foreign minister also distributed a British documentary aired last year in Scotland which doubted the two men were guilty.

(That belief is shared by several representatives of the victim’s groups—notably Swire, who contends that Iran and the Syrian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command may have been behind the attack.)

If the deadlock over how and where to hold the trial remain unclear, Libya has at least convinced several key nations on the Security Council that some aspects of the sanctions regime, which includes a travel ban and restrictions on the import of machinery related to oil refinery, must be eased.

A recent report by UN Under-Secretary-General Vladimir Petrovsky noted Libya’s complaints about the adverse impact that the air embargo was having on the economy, particularly on the health, social and agricultural sectors.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov argued that the findings of the report give sufficient grounds to discuss even now the possibility of humanitarian exemptions to the sanctions regime. Among them, he said, should be the replacement of Libya’s four ageing medical evacuation planes and extended humanitarian exemptions for Muslim pilgrims attending the annual ’hajj’ ceremony in Mecca.

Richardson, however, doubted any claims of humanitarian suffering in Libya, calling it the wealthiest country in Africa on a per capita basis, and noting that Tripoli earned some 10 billion dollars in oil revenue last year.

[RB: The speech to the Security Council by the Libyan Foreign Minister Omar al-Muntasser (which I had a small hand in drafting) can be read here. It helped to ratchet up the pressure on the UK and US governments which resulted in their accepting the “neutral venue” solution some five months later.]

Nelson Mandela confirms surrender of Lockerbie suspects imminent

[The following items are from this date in 1999:]

1. The following statement was issued today by the spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

This afternoon, the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda, hand delivered to the Secretary-General a letter from Omar Mustafa Muntasser, Secretary of the General People's Committee of the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

As already announced by President Nelson Mandela in Tripoli this morning, the letter confirms the readiness of Libya to proceed with the transfer of the two accused to the Netherlands. The Secretary-General is greatly encouraged by this development and the necessary arrangements will now be initiated by the Secretariat.

The Secretary-General has shared the letter with the Security Council.

The Secretary-General would like to record his warm appreciation of the efforts made by President Mandela, as well as Crown Prince Abdullah and others in order to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, in cooperation with the authorities of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

2. Following is the text of remarks made today to the press by the President of the Security Council, Qin Huasun (China), following Council consultations:

Security Council members welcomed the letter from the Foreign Minister of Libya to the Secretary-General of 19 March 1999, indicating that the two suspects would be available for the Secretary-General to take custody of them on or before 6 April;

Security Council members reaffirmed existing Security Council resolutions as the basis to bring about a full and final resolution of the situation;

Security Council members looked forward to the implementation of that handover in accordance with the agreed arrangements and, taking into account also the information provided by the French authorities regarding UTA 772, to the immediate suspension of sanctions with a view to lifting them as soon as circumstances permit, in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions;

Security Council members thanked the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts in reaching an understanding with Libya on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998), and expressed appreciation also for the positive actions taken by the Governments of South Africa, Saudi Arabia and other countries in support of these efforts.

3. Lockerbie trial: new developments

On 19 March 1999 President Nelson Mandela of South Africa announced in Tripoli that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, had written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, agreeing to surrender to him for trial the two Libyans (Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah) accused of bombing the Pan-Am jet over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. The handover is to occur on or before 6 April 1999. UN sanctions against Libya in respect of the country’s failure to hand over the suspects will be lifted within 90 days of compliance. The trial will take place in the Netherlands under Scots criminal law and before a panel of three Scottish judges from the High Court of Justiciary.

The first SCCRC application and consequent appeal

[The following are two items from this date in 2002 and 2009 respectively. Both relate to Abdelbaset Megrahi’s first SCCRC application and consequent appeal:]

1. From The Scotsman

Law expert helps Libya with Lockerbie appeal

The legal expert who brokered the Lockerbie trial is helping the Libyan government to lodge a fresh appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, it emerged yesterday.

Professor Robert Black, a law lecturer at Edinburgh University, flew to Tripoli the day after Megrahi’s appeal was rejected last week.

He said he regarded the case as a miscarriage of justice because the court did not consider all the available evidence. "We have not seen the end of this case," Prof Black added.

Thousands of people marched through the Libyan capital yesterday in protest at the decision of the appeal court judges to uphold the conviction of Megrahi. Riot police supervised demonstrations outside a UN office.

A statement handed to a UN representative said Megrahi’s life sentence "contradicts international laws, as it was handed as a result of political pressure aimed at settling account with the Libyan revolution."

Prof Black was invited to the country by the Libyan government’s Lockerbie Committee, which is planning to lodge an appeal through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was he who proposed the idea of trying the Lockerbie suspects in a neutral third country, which was the breakthrough which led to Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi agreeing to hand the two accused over for trial in the Netherlands.

Megrahi was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, resulting in the deaths of 270 people, and lost his appeal last week. (...)

The Libyan government has said it will appeal the ruling to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights.

Prof Black said: "I am sure that at some point they will actually make an application to the Scottish Commission which deals with miscarriages of justice. The commission could then refer it back to the appeal court.

"I predict the grounds for that would be that evidence is emerging that has not yet seen the light of day. There is a hell of a lot more evidence about Lockerbie that appeared at neither the trial nor the appeal."

2. From The Herald

Judges order Crown to hand over undisclosed Lockerbie evidence

Three senior judges yesterday ordered 45 pieces of key evidence to be handed over to the legal team representing the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office.

The vital documents include a secret fax that could discredit a key prosecution witness.

The court of criminal appeal in Edinburgh ordered prosecutors to find and disclose the different evidence, which has so far been kept secret from the defence.

Last month lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 bombing, began the challenge over material they believe will free their terminally ill client.

But the Crown Office and the UK Advocate General claimed that in some cases the evidence does not exist or is irrelevant.

The Libyan's defence team applied to see 48 documents, which included a fax they claim places a fundamental question mark against the original trial testimony of Tony Gauci, who sold clothes later found in the wreckage of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie.

The judges rejected three of the requests, including demands for information about the number of times police and US agencies had contact with Mr Gauci.

However, the onus will now be on the Crown to identify and share a range of other undisclosed documents, including those expected to show that Scottish police recommended to US authorities that both the main witness in the trial and his brother should be paid a reward of up to $3m, or $1.5m.

Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, who was sitting with Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie, said: "Without expressing any view on the adequacy of the steps already taken by the Crown to satisfy the claims for recovery, we consider that the appropriate course at this stage is to identify the classes of document which, if they exist, the appellant is in our judgment entitled to recover."

Megrahi's appeal is due to begin on April 27 and could last at least 12 months. Megrahi, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, is determined to clear his name but it is far from certain that he would survive such a long appeal case.

Libyan authorities have been encouraged to apply for a prisoner transfer to allow Megrahi to spend his remaining time with his family, but this would mean dropping the appeal, which he is not prepared to do.

Being economical with the truth over a Lockerbie trial

[What follows is an exchange during Scottish questions in the House of Commons on this date in 1998:]

HC Deb 17 March 1998 vol 308 cc1081-2

4. Mr [Tam] Dalyell:  If he will make a statement on the recent findings of the international court relating to the (a) venue and (b) jurisdiction of the trial of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing. [33158]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr Henry McLeish):  The International Court of Justice made no findings in relation to the venue or jurisdiction for the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing, but has held that it cannot determine, as a preliminary issue, the effect of the Security Council's resolutions on Libya's claims under the Montreal convention.

Mr Dalyell:  Is it really more important that a trial should take place in Scotland than that any trial should take place at all?

Mr McLeish:  Those accused of acts of terrorism should not be able to dictate the venue or composition of the court before which they are to be tried. Scotland and the United States have exercised jurisdiction in that case, and Libya should now surrender the two accused persons for trial in either of those two countries, as it is required to do under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham:  Does the Minister accept that, once a Scottish Parliament is up and running, given the devolution of powers over the legal system, a future Scottish Administration could decide to allow the Lockerbie trial to be held outwith Scotland? Does he accept that, if that happens, Westminster must not attempt to interfere with the decision?

Mr McLeish:  It is worth re-emphasising that both the United States and this country are sticking by an important principle: the solution to that problem lies in Libya, and it is vital that Libya abides by Security Council resolutions and delivers the two accused persons for a proper trial.

Mr Russell Brown:  I whole-heartedly agree with my hon Friend the Minister. There is great pressure on him to consider holding a trial in a neutral country, but, even if the Government were to consider doing so, must not the Libyan Government first give a clear guarantee that they would hand over the two suspects?

Mr McLeish:  Such a guarantee has not, to date, been forthcoming from the Libyans. It is important to repeat that the suspects should be given up. There must be a fair trial, and one has been offered within the jurisdiction of the United States or of Scotland. That is the best way forward. We expect the Libyans to abide by Security Council resolutions, and that is the simple matter on which the case rests at the moment.

[RB: On 12 January 1994 the chief defence lawyer for the two Libyan suspects, Dr Ibrahim Legwell, stated in writing (in response to a letter from me dated 10 January) that his clients were prepared to surrender themselves for trial before a tribunal operating under Scots law but sitting in a neutral country; on the same date, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya, Moussa Koussa, stated in writing that the Libyan Government approved of this solution. Further details can be found here.

In October 1997, during President Nelson Mandela’s stopover in Tripoli, en route to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh, Colonel Gaddafi confirmed that this remained the stance of the Libyan Government. On 15 January 1998 in the course of the television programme Words with Wark (in which I participated) Alistair Duff, the Scottish solicitor who represented the two accused men, reaffirmed that his clients wished to stand trial before a Scottish tribunal in a neutral venue, such as I had proposed in January 1994.

I therefore completely fail to comprehend what further “guarantee” the minister and those who supported him could have honestly expected from “the Libyans”.]

George H W Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Paul Channon

[On this date in 1989, a significant event in the Lockerbie story took place (and quite possibly two). Here is what Paul Foot wrote some five years later in a review in the London Review of Books:]

The American investigative columnist Jack Anderson has had some scoops in his time but none more significant than his revelation – in January 1990 [RB: 11 January 1990 in The Washington Post] – that in mid-March 1989, three months after Lockerbie, George [H W] Bush rang Margaret Thatcher to warn her to ‘cool it’ on the subject. On what seems to have been the very same day [RB: 16 March 1989], perhaps a few hours earlier, Thatcher’s Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, was the guest of five prominent political correspondents at a lunch at the Garrick Club. [RB: They were Ian Aitken of The Guardian, Chris Buckland of Today, Robin Oakley of The Times, Julia Langdon of the Daily Mirror and her husband Geoffrey Parkhouse, then of the Glasgow Herald.]  It was agreed that anything said at the lunch was ‘on strict lobby terms’ – that is, for the journalists only, not their readers. Channon then announced that the Dumfries and Galloway Police – the smallest police force in Britain – had concluded a brilliant criminal investigation into the Lockerbie crash. They had found who was responsible and arrests were expected before long. The Minister could not conceal his delight at the speed and efficiency of the PC McPlods from Dumfries, and was unstinting in his praise of the European intelligence.

So sensational was the revelation that at least one of the five journalists broke ranks; and the news that the Lockerbie villains would soon he behind bars in Scotland was divulged to the public. Channon, still playing the lobby game, promptly denied that he was the source of the story. Denounced by the Daily Mirror’s front page as a ‘liar’, he did not sue or complain. A few months later he was quietly sacked. Thatcher, of course, could not blame her loyal minister for his indiscretion, which coincided so unluckily with her instructions from the White House.

Channon had been right, however, about the confidence of the Dumfries and Galloway Police. They did reckon they knew who had done the bombing. Indeed, they had discovered almost at once that a terrorist bombing of an American airliner, probably owned by Pan-Am, had been widely signalled and even expected by the authorities in different European countries. The point was, as German police and intelligence rather shamefacedly admitted, that a gang of suspected terrorists had been rumbled in Germany in the months before the bombing. They were members of a faction of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, led by Ahmed Jibril. The aim of the gang was to bomb an American airliner in revenge for the shooting down by an American warship of an Iranian civil airliner in the Gulf earlier in the year. On 26 October 1988, less than two months before the bombing, two of the suspects – Hafez Dalkamoni and Marwan Abdel Khreesat – were arrested in their car outside a flat at Neuss near Frankfurt. In the car was a bomb, moulded into the workings of a black Toshiba cassette recorder. In the ensuing weeks other raids were carried out on alleged terrorist hideaways in Germany, and 16 suspects arrested. One of them was Mohammad Abu Talb, another member of the PFLP, who was almost instantly released. Even more curious was the equally prompt release of Khreesat, who was suspected of making the bomb found in Dalkamoni’s car.

The finding of the bomb led to a flurry of intelligence activity. It was discovered that the bomb had been specifically made to blow up an aircraft; and that the gang had made at least five bombs, four of which had not been found. At once, a warning went out on the European intelligence network to watch out for bombs masked in radio cassette recorders, especially at airports.

[RB: Further details of these incidents can be found in Paul Foot’s Lockerbie: The Flight from Justice, pages 3 to 5; in this article in the Executive Intelligence Review of February 1990; and in John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury, pages 52 to 54.]