Parliamentary questions and answers on Lockerbie

[On this date in 1995, Tam Dalyell MP received answers in the House of Commons to several written questions about Lockerbie. The following are three of the questions and answers:]

Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the court case, Air Malta v Granada Television, and pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 31 January, Official Report, column 558, what evidence has been found to substantiate a Malta connection with the Lockerbie bombing.

Mr Douglas Hogg: Two Libyan nationals are accused of having placed, or having caused to be placed, the bomb which destroyed flight PA 103 on board an Air Malta flight from Luqa airport on 21 December 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the evidence against the two accused while criminal proceedings are pending. The recent out-of-court settlement between Air Malta and Granada Television has no bearing on the prosecution case against the two accused. I understand that the story in relation to which Air Malta brought the action was based on allegations different in detail from those contained in the warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused.

Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to evidence involving officials of countries other than Libya in relation to Lockerbie; and what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to obtain such evidence concerning nationals of countries, other than Libya, undertaken on 20 January 1992, Official Report, column 159.

Mr Douglas Hogg: The Lockerbie investigators have given exhaustive consideration to all information relevant to the Lockerbie bombing. The possible involvement by nationals of a number of countries has been very closely investigated. Despite the unprecedented scale of the investigation, the available evidence does not support charges against the nationals of any country besides Libya. But the investigation remains open and any relevant new information will be considered.

Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Her Majesty's Government supported the United States decision that the Montreal convention, requiring attempts at conciliation and arbitration, should not be applied in relation to Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie; and what the preferred action was through the UN Security Council.

Mr Douglas Hogg: The question of the applicability of the Montreal convention is pending before the International Court of Justice. We and the US Government referred to the UN Security Council Libya's failure to surrender the two accused of the Lockerbie bombing in view of the frequently expressed concerns of the United Nations about the effect of terrorism on international peace and security.

Differentiating between personal opinions and scientific fact

[On this date in 1997 Tam Dalyell MP asked a question in the House of Commons arising out of the soon-to-be-published US Department of Justice Inspector-General’s report The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases. An FBI internal memo subsequent to that report contained the following:

"It is clear that SSA Thurman does not understand the scientific issues involved with the interpretation and significance of explosives and explosives residue composition. He therefore should realise this deficiency and differentiate between his personal opinions and scientific fact. An expert's opinion should be based upon objective, scientific findings and be separated from personal predilections and biases. (...) SSA Thurman acted irresponsibly. He should be held accountable. He should be disciplined accordingly".

The exchange in the House of Commons reads as follows:]

HC Deb 05 March 1997 vol 291 cc883-4

Mr. Dalyell To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter of the Lord Advocate to the hon Member for Linlithgow of 14 February, by whom the allegations were considered and the conclusions drawn that proof of the Scottish case against the two accused Libyans did not depend on evidence that Mr Thurman might give.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) The allegations concerning Mr Thurman are a matter for the United States authorities. I am advised that the United States inspector general's report, after investigation of the allegations, has not yet been published. When the American allegations became known, Mr Thurman's role in the Lockerbie case was considered by the then Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. As long ago as October 1995, he advised the hon. Gentleman that proof of the Lockerbie case does not depend on evidence that Mr Thurman might give.

Mr. Dalyell Now we know that the Crown Office has slavishly followed information from the United States. At the time, did the Americans know that Mr Thurman would be accused and lose his job for having fabricated forensic evidence? If it was not Mr Thurman, who was it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Obviously, the Law Officers are well aware of the allegations. However, the report has not been published, and it would be wrong to prejudge its outcome. I repeat what I have already said: the Lord Advocate has never suggested that Mr Thurman did not play a significant part in the investigation. The Lord Advocate and his predecessor have chosen their words carefully in saying that the case does not depend on evidence that Mr Thurman might give.

Sir Hector Monro Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who live in Lockerbie or, like me, near it firmly believe that the investigations conducted by the Dumfries and Galloway police, the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate show that the alleged criminals in Libya must be brought to book in a court in Scotland or the United States, and that diversions to other possible suspects only cause harm?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I agree with my right hon Friend. I was at Lockerbie literally within hours of the tragedy and atrocity. I believe that the Law Officers would not have brought forward the accusations if they had not been based on very strong evidence.

Dr Godman Despite the excellent work done by the police force mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H Monro) and the Prime Minister's acknowledgement to me, some months ago, that any such trial will be held in Scotland and not in America, when will the Minister admit that it is highly unlikely that any such trial will take place at the High Court in Edinburgh? Almost nine years have passed since the terrible affair at Lockerbie, yet we are no nearer to bringing the culprits to trial. Why have the Government failed so signally in the matter?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Those issues could well be addressed to the Libyan Government. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made it clear at the Dispatch Box last Friday that we should look to the Libyan Government to assist with the investigation. He went on to say: Libya's record of state sponsorship of terrorism is, rightly, a matter of deep and abiding concern."—[Official Report, 28 February 1997; Vol 291, c 603.] I reject arguments for a third-country trial for the case, which could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair. We cannot allow alleged terrorists to determine where they are tried.

Mr John Marshall Everyone agrees that the Lockerbie disaster was a great human tragedy. Is it not incumbent on hon Members to congratulate the Scottish police on their investigation, to emphasise that Scottish justice would be even-handed between the alleged criminals and the forces of law, and to condemn those in the House who act as apologists for the evil terrorists of Libya?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I have confidence in the Scottish system of criminal justice, which is one of the best in the world. I do not believe that attempts to have a trial elsewhere in Europe would succeed. The Libyans have given no indication that they would co-operate with such attempts.

Mr Dalyell On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall try to get my 11th Adjournment debate on the subject.

Independent counsel to consider any Lockerbie criminality allegations

[What follows are written questions answered on 2 March 2017 in the Scottish Parliament:]

Question S5W-06844: Alex Neil, Airdrie and Shotts, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/02/2017

To ask the Scottish Government who will decide on what action should be taken arising from the findings of the Police Scotland report on Operation Sandwood.

Answered by James Wolffe QC (02/03/2017):

If there is any report submitted by Police Service of Scotland alleging criminality by named individuals, the Law Officers consider it important that such allegations in accordance with normal practice are dealt with fairly and robustly by independent counsel, supported as required by a senior Procurator Fiscal with no prior involvement in the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103. Independent counsel would therefore be expected to decide on what action should be taken.

Current Status: Answered by James Wolffe QC on 02/03/2017

Question S5W-06832: Alex Neil, Airdrie and Shotts, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/02/2017

To ask the Scottish Government whether it remains the case that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service personnel involved in Lockerbie-related matters would take part in the consideration of the Police Scotland report on Operation Sandwood and that an independent counsel would consider the report and, if so, who this counsel will be.

Answered by James Wolffe QC (02/03/2017):

As has been confirmed previously, in accordance with normal practice any report emanating from Operation Sandwood will be dealt with fairly and robustly by independent counsel, supported as required by a senior Procurator Fiscal with no prior involvement in the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103. Independent counsel will be appointed if any report alleging criminality is received.

Current Status: Answered by James Wolffe QC on 02/03/2017

Moussa Koussa appointed Foreign Minister of Libya

[On this date in 2009 Moussa Koussa was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in a ministerial reshuffle announced by the Libyan parliament. What follows is excerpted from a report published on The Telegraph website in March 2011:]

The former Libyan intelligence chief who has defected to Britain has been implicated in the Lockerbie bombing and a number of other atrocities conducted by the regime of Col Muammar Gaddafi.

However, in recent years he has also become an important contact for both MI6 and the CIA as they attempted to rehabilitate the regime, according to sources and leaked US diplomatic cables.

The Daily Telegraph understands that MI6 had discussed his desire to leave Libya in recent days but was not expecting his escape.

Moussa Muhammad Koussa is the man closest to Col Muammar Gaddafi to have defected, arriving in Britain a week after his 62nd birthday.

Western educated, he attended Michigan State University, earning a degree in sociology in 1978 before working in various Libyan embassies across Europe, probably as an intelligence officer.

He was appointed as Libya's Ambassador to Britain in 1980 but soon afterwards he was expelled from the country after claiming, on the steps of the embassy, that the Gaddafi regime had decided the night before to kill two dissidents in Britain, apparently adding: "I approve of this." (...)

Western intelligence agencies have claimed Mr Koussa was involved in the planning of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie which killed 270 people. (...)

Western intelligence agencies have claimed Mr Koussa was involved in the planning of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie which killed 270 people.

He has also been accused of complicity in the destruction of a French airliner over Niger in 1989, the bombing of a disco in Germany, and supplying arms to the IRA as Gaddafi’s regime wreaked havoc across the world.

Always involved in secret intelligence, he served as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1992 to 1994 and then as the head of the Libyan intelligence agency from 1994 to 2009.

However, a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Mr Koussa led a delegation to London for talks with MI6 and CIA officials.

He went on to become a key figure in the normalisation of relations between Libya, Britain and the US as Libya abandoned its chemical weapons and paid compensation to the victims of their attacks. In that role and as head of Libyan intelligence, he also became well-known to his counterparts.

He was also central to securing the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence officer found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, after meeting officials from the government and Scottish executive in October 2008 and January 2009.

US diplomatic cables published by the WikiLeaks website and seen by the Daily Telegraph, reveal that Mr Koussa told the British Ambassador Sir Vincent Fean that the bomber of Flight 103 was a “a very ill man, too ill for anything but a quiet return to his family”, days before he was released.

Mr Koussa also promised that the bomber’s reception would be low key – later admitting it was a “big mistake” when he was given a hero’s welcome.

A communiqué sent in late May 2009, relates how Mr Koussa boasted to a visiting US general of his connections with the CIA.

In another cable from May 2009, a US diplomat said: “Kusa [sic] is one of the most influential figures in the regime and has been a proponent of improved ties with the United States…

“Kusa is the rare Libyan official who embodies a combination of intellectual acumen, operational ability and political weight. Promoting specific areas of cooperation with him is an opportunity to have him cast that message in terms palatable to Libya’s leadership.”

Libya raises World Court proceedings against USA and UK

[On this date in 1992 Libya filed an application against the United States of America in the Registry of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (and a similar application against the United Kingdom). The Statement of Facts in the application against the United States reads as follows:]

On 21 December 1988, Pan Am flight 103 crashed at Lockerbie, Scotland.

On 14 November 1991, a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States of America, indicted two Libyan nationals (the "accused") charging, inter alia, that they had caused a bomb to be placed aboard Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988 bound from London to New York which bomb had exploded causing the aeroplane to crash.

The allegations contained in the indictment constitute an offence within the meaning of Article I of the Montreal Convention which, in relevant part, provides: "Any person commits an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally:

(a) performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;

or (b) destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight;

or (c) places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight, or to cause damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety in flight."

The said indictment was communicated to Libya.

At the time the indictment was communicated to Libya, or shortly thereafter, the accused were present in the territory of Libya and have remained there since.

After being apprised of the indictment, Libya took such measures as were necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses alleged therein. Libya also took measures to ensure the presence of the accused in Libya in order to enable criminal proceedings to be instituted and initiated a preliminary enquiry into the facts.

Libyan investigators sought information from the authorities in the United States, and expressed their willingness to travel to the United States or elsewhere to review the evidence or co-operate with the investigations in those countries. The Libyan Government also sent communications to the Attorney General of the United States and the foreman of the Grand Jury which issued the indictment requesting their co-operation in the Libyan judicial investigations. Libya received no response to any of these initiatives, and the United States together with its law enforcement officials have refused to co-operate in any respect with the Libyan investigations.

There is no extradition treaty in force between Libya and the United States. Consequently, Libya has not extradited the accused or either of them. Nor has Libya surrendered them, despite the efforts of the United States to pressure Libya to do so.

Libya has submitted the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, which authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under Libyan law.

On 17 January 1992, Libya addressed a letter from Mr. Ibrahim Mohammed Elbushari, Secretary of the People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Co-operation, to Mr. James Baker, Secretary of State of the United States. In this letter, Mr. Elbushari referred to the fact that Libya had undertaken the necessary measures relating to the incident provided for in the Montreal Convention. Mr. Elbushari also indicated that, despite requests to the competent United States authorities to provide assistance to the Libyan judicial authorities, these requests had not met with any response, and he invited the United States to agree to arbitration in accordance with Article 14 (1) of the Montreal Convention.

The United States failed to respond formally to that letter. Nonetheless, after the letter was sent, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations stated that the situation was one "to which standard procedures are clearly inapplicable" (S/PV.3033, 21 January 1992, p. 78), that "the issue at hand is not some difference of opinion or approach that can be mediated or negotiated" (ibid., p. 79), and that ". . . neither Libya nor indeed any other State can seek to hide support for international terrorism behind traditional principles of international law and State practice" (ibid., p. 80).

Thus, despite the efforts of Libya to resolve the master within the framework of international law, including the Montreal Convention, the United States has rejected this approach and continues to adopt a posture of pressuring Libya into surrendering the accused.

---

Accordingly, while reserving the right to supplement and amend this submission as appropriate in the course of further proceedings, Libya requests the Court to adjudge and declare as follows:

(a) that Libya has fully complied with all of its obligations under the Montreal Convention;

(b) that the United States has breached, and is continuing to breach, its legal obligations to Libya under Articles 5 (2), 5 (3), 7, 8 (2) and 11 of the Montreal Convention; and

(c) that the United States is under a legal obligation immediately to cease and desist from such breaches and from the use of any and all force or threats against Libya, including the threat of force against Libya, and from all violations of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the political independence of Libya.

Libya will further request the Court in a separate document to indicate, as a master of urgency, interim measures of protection.

[RB: The history and eventual outcome of Libya’s World Court applications against the USA and UK can be followed here.]

While most Americans refuse to accept Megrahi was innocent, it happens to be true

[What follows is the text of an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009:]

Susan Lindauer interview

The Intelligence Daily today carries an extended interview by Michael Collins with Susan Lindauer. One section reads as follows:

'Collins: What first triggered your concern about a possible attack involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure into the 9/11 warning?

'Lindauer: The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001. Our team worried openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of "tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.

'The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that Libya's man, Mr Megrahi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true. And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the US made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused Libyans, that US failure was gossip throughout the Middle East. As Dr [Richard] Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty resources of US Intelligence, the US was either too stupid to catch them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."

'Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the "heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.

'That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel who ever lived."

'Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie - and so we find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.'

[RB: The Intelligence Daily website no longer seems to exist. However, the interview can be read in full here.]

How you build a lie

What follows is excerpted from an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2011:

Lockerbie, Guilt & Gaddafi

[This is the heading over a post published yesterday on Ian Bell's blog. It reads in part:]

Mustafa Abdel-Jalil is quick on his feet, if nothing else. From senior functionary in a despised and brutish regime to freedom-loving “head of the provisional government” in under a fortnight is smart work indeed.

It is reassuring, too, that Gaddafi’s former justice minister has been “chosen”, in the Scotsman’s words, “to head new regime”. Alternatively – the Sky News version – Abdel-Jalil has been “elected... president of Libya’s newly-formed National Council”.

As it turns out, the born-again democrat appears to have done all the electing and choosing himself, backed by the overwhelming support of persons named Abdel-Jalil. (...)

He calculates, no doubt, that his access to the world’s media will bolster his status in a post-Gaddafi Libya. Name recognition, they call it. But to pull off that trick, Abdel-Jalil must first tell the western press what the western press wants to hear, and bet – a safe enough bet – that reporters will not think beyond the headlines. Over the weekend, he made excellent use of his brief spell as Mr President.

So here’s Murdoch’s Sunday Times, a paper to which the phrase “once great” attaches itself like a faded obituary. “Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing” was done and dusted by the weekend. A new line was required. Any ideas?

The Lockerbie bomber blackmailed Colonel Gaddafi into securing his re­lease from a Scottish prison by threatening to expose the dictator’s role in Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity, a former senior Libyan official [guess who] has claimed.

Now, let’s keep this simple. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was handed over to Scot­tish police on April 5, 1999, and released on compassionate grounds on August 20, 2009. Clearly, this was the most patient blackmailer the world has seen. If we believe a word, the man nursed his threat to exact “revenge” for over a decade, until terminal cancer intervened. As you do.

According to Abdel-Jalil and the Sunday Times, nevertheless, “Megrahi’s ploy led to a £50,000-a-month slush fund being set up to spend on legal fees and lobbying to bring him back to Tripoli”. Since the entire Libyan exchequer was Gaddafi’s per­sonal slush fund, the sum seems niggardly. If vastly more was not spent on the case, I’d be astonished. And why wouldn’t it be spent? Wasn't Megrahi threatening to “spill the beans”?

But here Abdel-Jalil pulls out another of his plums. Again, he provides noth­ing resembling the whiff of proof. Al-Megrahi “was not the man who carried out the planning and execution of the bombing, but he was ‘nevertheless involved in facili­tating things for those who did’”.

So where does that leave us? Megrahi – what with “planning and execution” omitted – didn’t do it. Another sensation. Or is that revelation perhaps designed to solve several tiny issues raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) and others over a miscarriage of justice and sundry associated issues?

Never fear: Gaddafi certainly did do it. That’s “on the record”, placed there by the erstwhile “head of the provisional government”, no less. So what then of “plan­ning and execution”; what of “those who did”? Yet again, Abdel-Jalil doesn’t say. Why not?

Smoke and mirrors is a cliché, God knows. You only wish they would polish the mirrors occasionally, and puff up some properly thick smoke. But why bother? It works. First: make sure that “everyone knows” Gaddafi did it. Secondly, as though inferentially, throw in a few details based on a “fact” established by hearsay and mere assertion. This is how you build a lie.

What happened – what is established by the evidence as having happened – matters less than perception and belief. Gaddafi, with his multifarious actual crimes, is now the handiest scapegoat imaginable. Perhaps he should complain to Tony Blair.

Or perhaps he should get himself to the Hague, and to a proper court. It would do the dictator no good, but it might do wonders, even now, for the reputation of Scottish justice. I put the chances of that at zero.

Easier to grant compassionate release if appeal dropped

[What follows is the text of an article headlined Lockerbie book is 'third-hand hearsay', says Scottish government that was published in The Guardian on this date in 2012:]

The Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is to make a statement to Holyrood in the wake of claims he advised the Lockerbie bomber to drop his appeal to smooth the way for his release.

The allegations – strongly denied by the Scottish government – are contained in a new book about the bomber which was published on Monday.

In the wake of the allegations, MacAskill, who controversially freed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in August 2009 on compassionate grounds, faced calls from opposition politicians to make a statement to Holyrood.

He will now do that, and answer questions from MSPs on the matter, on Wednesday afternoon.

On Monday, a spokesman for the Scottish government categorically denied that it "had any involvement of any kind in Mr Al-Megrahi dropping his appeal".

The spokesman insisted that had been "entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal team".

He also branded the book Megrahi: You Are My Jury, by the writer, researcher and TV producer John Ashton, "third-hand hearsay".

MacAskill decided to free the Libyan – the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 which killed 270 people – on compassionate grounds.

Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, remains alive today despite being said to have three months to live when he was released.

Shortly before being freed, he had dropped his second appeal against his conviction. Ashton's book claims MacAskill met a delegation of Libyan officials 10 days before announcing his decision, including the foreign minister Abdulati al-Obedi.

In the book, Megrahi is quoted saying: "Obedi said that towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private.

"Once the others had withdrawn, he stated that MacAskill gave him to understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal."

Ashton, who studied the Lockerbie case for 18 years and spent three years as a researcher with the bomber's legal team, said: "Mr Megrahi makes clear in the book that it was made clear to him by the Libyan official who met with Mr MacAskill that it would help his case for compassionate release if he dropped his appeal."

The author added that Megrahi "felt very strongly that dropping the appeal would help his application for compassionate release".

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats called on MacAskill to make a statement to the Scottish parliament in the wake of the book's allegations.

However, the spokesman for the Scottish government said on Monday the claims in the book were wrong, and added: "Officials were present at all meetings the justice secretary had on this matter at all times."

Gaddafi “blackmailed by Megrahi”

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

The Lockerbie bomber blackmailed Colonel Gadaffi into securing his release from a Scottish prison by threatening to expose the dictator's role in Britain's worst terrorist atrocity, a former senior Libyan official has claimed.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi vowed to exact' "revenge" unless he was returned home, said Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Libya's former justice minister. In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times, Abdel-Jalil says Megrahi's ploy led to a €50,000-a-month slush fund being set up to spend on legal fees and lobbying to bring him back to Tripoli.

His comments are highly embarrassing for Labour, after declassified documents revealed that Gordon Brown's govemment secretly worked to deliver the bomber's freedom in exchange for trade deals. They are also likely to further strain relations between Britain and the United States, which had opposed Megrahi's release. (...)

Abdel-Jalil, who quit his job last week over the regime's brutal crackdown and is now setting up an interim government in Benghazi, said Megrahi was involved in the attack ordered by Gadaffi as one of the Leader’s former spies.

He was not the man who carried out the planning and execution of the bombing, but he was "nevertheless involved in facilitating things for those who did".

Abdel-Jalil said he knew from two Libyan senior justice officials assigned to liaise with Megrahi in Scotland that he had threatened to "spill the beans" on several occasions. Megrahi had warned Gadaffi: "lf you do not rescue me, I will reveal everything. If you don't ensure my return home, I will reveal everything."

The threat paid off, ensuring the Libyan leader became heavily involved. "Abdelbaset received very special treatment as a Libyan prisoner abroad that was never shown to anyone else," said Abdel-Jalil.

"Gadaffi and his officials were dedicated to ensuring that Megrahi should return to Libya even if it cost them every penny they had. It was costing Libya £50,000 a month being paid to him, his legal team and family members for visitations and living expenses.” He claimed that up to £1.3 billion was spent on the case. (...)

Jim Swire, a retired British doctor whose 24-year-ald, daughter Flora was killed, said: “I’ve never known who ordered the bombing.

"I would love to see Gadaffi and his henchmen brought out of Libya alive and put in front of an international court in Holland to answer the questions we have about why and how this was carried out.

“Some may say if it can be proved Gadaffi ordered the Lockerbie bombings, does it matter how he did it? Well, it certainly matters to us, the relatives of the victims. We want to know the truth about how it was carried out and who was behind it."

Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP for Lancaster and Wyre, said the comments proved the conspiracy theorists who maintained Megrahi's innocence were wrong and intelligence services under Labour.

"Why were British intelligence and Scottish ministers not aware at the time of the threat being made by Megrahi, or had he already indicated to the authorities that he was prepared to talk?" Wallace said.

"If he was a foreign spy, why weren't we bugging those conversations? ... From start to finish Megrahi made fools of the Scottish government and the Labour government, with the Lockerbie victims and taxpayers paying the price."

[A somewhat shorter report in the New York Daily News can be read here.]

[RB: Here is a comment that I posted on this blog at the time:]

What has any of this got to do with whether Abdelbaset Megrahi was wrongly convicted on the evidence led at Camp Zeist? Is this no longer an issue of any concern? Is the question of the probity and integrity of the Scottish criminal justice system of no importance once a few Libyans who once, with no apparent qualms, supported Colonel Gaddafi decide that telling the US and the UK what they want to hear may be in their own best long-term interests?