Lockerbie bomb did not leave Malta, Justice Minister insists

[This is the headline over a report in yesterday's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times.  It reads in part:]

Malta would continue to stick to its long-held stand that the Lockerbie bomb did not leave from Luqa airport, Justice Minister Chris Said has insisted.

“Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that, according to our records, the bomb did not leave Malta. We are still firm in that conviction,” Dr Said told The Times in view of fresh evidence released by the Scottish authorities.

However, the government does not seem to be interested in petitioning the Scottish auth­orities to re-open the Lockerbie investigation “at least to clear Malta’s name”, as requested by Labour foreign affairs spokesman George Vella.

Dr Said skirted the issue when asked but added: “We cannot ignore that there were two judgements on (Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi). The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded.”

A report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that was made public this week established that Mr Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing, may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

It also shed doubt on the credibility of a key Maltese witness, Sliema shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who had identified Mr Megrahi as the man he sold clothes to. Fragments of the clothes were found in the remains of the suitcase that contained the bomb.

The Scottish commission had initiated its investigation that laid the groundwork for a review of Mr Megrahi’s appeal but the matter never went beyond the extensive report because the Libyan national was released from jail – where he was serving life – on compassionate grounds in 2009.

Investigators had argued that an unaccompanied suitcase carrying the bomb and containing clothing bought from Mr Gauci’s shop was placed on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it eventually made it to Heath­row before being loaded onto the fatal Pan-Am flight 103.

[A report in Thursday's edition of the same newspaper contains the following:]

As fresh evidence emerges on the Lockerbie bombing that sheds serious doubt on Malta’s link, Labour foreign affairs spokesman George Vella has urged the government to petition the Scottish authorities to reopen the investigation.

“The government should petition the Scottish authorities to reopen the Lockerbie investigation, at least to clear Malta’s name,” Dr Vella said when contacted yesterday, adding the report continued to confirm serious concerns raised over the past years over the guilty verdict.

But according to lawyer Giannella de Marco, who formed part of Mr Megrahi’s defence team at the time, Malta had nothing to clear because it was never accused of helping terrorists.

Investigators had argued that an unaccompanied suitcase carrying the bomb and containing clothing bought from a Sliema shop was placed on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it eventually made it to Heathrow before being loaded onto the fatal Pan-Am flight 103. The aircraft exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie killing 270 people.

Dr Vella expressed serious concern on the report’s assertion that a key Maltese witness was paid for providing incriminating evidence that led to Mr Megrahi’s conviction. The review commission shed serious doubt on the credibility of Tony Gauci, the Sliema shopkeeper who is supposed to have sold the clothes found in the suitcase to Mr Megrahi.

Mr Gauci, the report said, had also been paid by the US State Department for the important evidence he gave during the trial when identifying Mr Megrahi as “the Libyan” who bought clothes from his shop, Mary’s House, in December 1988.

“It shocks me to know that for money some people will be ready to send someone to jail,” Dr Vella said.

There were big international interests involved, he added, especially if it were true that “evidence was planted and witnesses paid to confirm the story that was created”.

Doubts over Mr Megrahi’s guilty verdict in 2001 have long been cast, especially by British doctor Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the terrorist attack.

Dr Swire has long believed Mr Megrahi is innocent and that Malta could not have been involved in any way. It is a sentiment shared by Dr de Marco.

She always had a suspicion that Mr Gauci was paid because his version and description of the man who supposedly bought clothes from his shop changed many times.

“By time, the description of the man Gauci sold the clothes to, which initially did not resemble Megrahi, grew to resemble him and I am glad that the Scottish review commission has seen his testimony for what it is,” she said.

Dr de Marco does not agree with those who argued Malta had to clear its name. She insisted there was never any conclusive evidence that the bomb had left from Malta and in no way was the country ever accused of aiding terrorists.

“On the contrary, Malta had helped investigators in all ways possible so the truth could emerge,” she said.