Challenge to senators to support wide-ranging Lockerbie inquiry

[What appears below is the full text of the letter sent by Robert Forrester on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi campaign to Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer.]

You may be aware that group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open public inquiry, which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).

For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html

In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves.

We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged at his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.

With regard to the release we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details:

http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm

As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of his medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock.

Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.

It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.

High above courthouses worldwide stands statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and her instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.

An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.

We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.

We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.

Letter to editors

[What follows is the text of a letter sent on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi campaign to the editors of selected newspapers and broadcast news media in the United Kingdom and abroad.]

In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland.

Whilst there have been demands from a number of quarters to open an inquiry into how and why Mr Al-Megrahi was availed of compassionate release, you will certainly also be aware of the efforts of others to not only investigate this but to establish a full, comprehensive and open public inquiry into the entire Lockerbie affair including:
*The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
*The police investigation of the tragedy.
*The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
*The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
*The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
*The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.

Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. In the latter months of 2008, a campaign was launched with the express aim of obtaining Justice for Megrahi (JFM). Since its founding, it has petitioned the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation, the Government of Malta, and most recently the Scottish Government and members of the US Senate to support the establishment of a comprehensive, public inquiry, of the type mentioned above, into all matters pertaining to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie tragedy. At the heart of this campaign from its inception has lain a commitment to see transparency prevail and justice done in a case which from the outset has been afflicted with accusations of buck passing, obfuscation, political interference and a gross miscarriage of justice.

Confusion still continues to reign where this case is concerned, ranging from some believing that Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted by eight Law Lords to his having been released via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). Both of these contentions are erroneous. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of fact, and it has always been central to this campaign, whether he actually committed the offence he has been convicted of or not, that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice based simply on the evidence laid before the three judges at Zeist by the prosecution. We do not seek to attribute blame for the events of 21st December 1988. We do not seek retribution for investigatory or judicial shortcomings. We seek justice in the name of justice.

Courts of fact can and do get things wrong. This, after all, is precisely why we rely on the institution of the Court of Appeal. Where most convicts would be happy to have their case put before the appeal court on just one ground for appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal by the SCCRC on no fewer than six grounds. Taking this into account, we also fully and deeply identify with those bereaved friends and families who, perfectly understandably, believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe. Nevertheless, if Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. Justice should not and must not be viewed as a tool of convenience. It is our belief that all of the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.

For your convenience, you will find included below the letters sent to Mr Salmond and Mr McAskill, and, additionally, to the American senators. Furthermore, you will also find the list of signatories who are endorsing the objective of opening a Lockerbie public inquiry.

It is our belief that the fourth estate owes a moral obligation, not only to its readers and viewers but to the bereaved of Lockerbie especially, to commit its voice firmly behind demands for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. MSPs have already come out in support of such an inquiry, and although both Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have endorsed such in principle, they seem hesitant to grasp the nettle where it comes to setting one up in Scotland. Moreover, the media have a vital and powerful role to play in ensuring that our Scottish justice system, which is currently regarded internationally as an embarrassment, and is seen as demonstrably malleable by political hands, is reinstated to its rightful former position as an institution which can be looked up to, respected and trusted by the people.

With this in mind, we wish to extend to you an invitation to place your name alongside those of the other signatories on the letter to the Scottish Government. We feel that support of this nature from yourself, given the prominent stature of your institution, would add considerable weight to promoting the aims of this campaign.

The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.

The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Mr Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. Media pressure is a vital tool in achieving this in a case where the judiciary and politicians seem thus far to be failing. We hope that you will find the arguments presented here and in the letters below convincing enough for you to add your name to the list of signatories.

This letter is being sent to multiple press and media outlets.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi committee member).

THE CURRENT LIST OF SIGNATORIES.

Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mrs Jean Berkley
(Co-ordinator UK Families Flight 103 and mother of Alistair Berkley: PA103 victim).
Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the Architect of the Camp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mr Robert Forrester
(Justice for Megrahi campaign committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103).
Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).
Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).

LETTER TO FIRST MINISTER MR SALMOND (THE IDENTICAL CONTENT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE MR MACASKILL), 22ND JULY 2010.

Dear First Minister,

I write on behalf of the current signatories to the petition to the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (published in September 2009) requesting the institution of a full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy at Lockerbie in 1988 and the subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist, which resulted in his conviction in 2001 for the murder of 270 people. (...)

In August of 2009, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, sanctioned the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi on medical grounds. No matter which side of the fence one is on, Mr MacAskill took a sensitive and challenging decision on an issue that was always going to be contentious and fraught; his conclusion was based on medical advice suggesting that Mr Al-Megrahi's life expectancy might not exceed a total of three months. Medical judgments, much like legal ones, are based on practice and precedent. Medicine, however much we may wish it to be, is not an exact science, hence it is referred to by the term practice; no case is identical to any other in all respects and there must, therefore, always be an element of guesswork involved. Nevertheless, no sooner had the three month period elapsed than protests were emanating from predictable quarters in debating chambers and the press questioning why a Greater Power had neglected to avail Mr Al-Megrahi of an audience.

In light of the recent difficulties being encountered by BP in the USA, these voices have been encouraged to become increasingly shrill: with ill-informed aspersions being cast on an almost daily basis in the direction of the Scottish Government. Mr MacAskill employed due process under Scots law in acting as he did. He did not resort to the device of the PTA but instead applied a facility that is enshrined in Scots law, namely, compassionate release. All Scots have just cause to be proud of their system in this regard insofar as, combined with the fact that we have no death sentence available to us, we can demonstrate that we do not bring our system down to the level of the murderer to resolve our problems, and that we are compassionate. In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release.

In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition). Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.

From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.

Finally, we should point out that the reason the petition was originally directed to the United Nations was because we considered that although the General Assembly does not have within its gift the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before it (unlike the Security Council), given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow. We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start.

Thank you kindly for your time and attention.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Committee member of Justice for Megrahi).

LETTER TO SENATORS GILLIBRAND, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ AND SCHUMER, 29TH JULY 2010.

Dear Senators Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer,

You may be aware that a group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open, public inquiry which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).

For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html

In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves. We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged by his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.

With regard to the release, we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details: http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm

As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of the prisoner’s medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock. See also:
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm

Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue to claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.

It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.

High above courthouses worldwide stands a statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and its instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished, we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.

An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we are all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.

We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.

We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.

Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester.

Salmond snubs Megrahi probe bid

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

First Minister Alex Salmond has turned down an invitation to support a campaign for an international inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

Salmond received the request from the Justice for Megrahi campaign following comments that he had “nothing to hide” from such an inquiry into the atrocity.

The group has petitioned the UN general assembly to hold an investigation into the Lockerbie case and has drawn a number of high-profile backers including former journalist Kate Adie, writer and campaigner John Pilger, human rights commentator Professor Noam Chomsky and Private Eye editor Ian Hislop.

The First Minister has said he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the UN, however, the Scottish Government said it would be inappropriate for Mr Salmond to lend his support to the Justice for Megrahi campaign.

A spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns over some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.

“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against original suspect Mohammed Abu Talb, who was allegedly funded by Iran to blow up the plane in revenge for the American cruiser USS Vincennes shooting an Iran Air flight out of the sky on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people.

The Egyptian-born militant served as a prosecution witness at the Megrahi trial. Talb has now been freed from prison in Sweden where he served sentences linked to terror attacks in Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

Professor Bob Black, QC, member of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by Mr Salmond’s rejection, claiming it would have been a “major step forward” for the campaign.

[What follows is the text of the letter sent -- more in hope than in expectation -- to the First Minister by Justice for Megrahi.]
 
We, the Justice for Megrahi Committee and all signatories to the committee’s activities, wish to convey to you our most sincere gratitude for your recent outspoken comments in the broadcast media in support of an independent United Nations inquiry into circumstances surrounding what has become commonly referred to as the Lockerbie case.
 
You will, on the back of prior correspondence we have sent to you, be fully cognisant of the fact that we lobbied the General Assembly of the UN in September of last year to precisely the same end. In addition to this, we have made approaches to other bodies, most notably the Government of Malta, the Senate of the United States of America and the Scottish Government requesting support for the establishment of an independent public inquiry encompassing: the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103; the police investigation of the tragedy; the subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial; the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi; the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s referral of Mr Al-Megrahi’s case to the Court of Appeal; and finally, the circumstances surrounding the dropping of Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal and his compassionate release. Unfortunately, all our efforts to reach the goal of establishing an inquiry under the auspices of the UN have fallen on deaf ears thus far.
 
However, with the support which you are now clearly giving to this cause, in your capacity as the elected leader of the Scottish people, we are becoming increasingly optimistic of success.
 
You have quite correctly stated your reservations in the past with regard to any given nation state alone setting up an inquiry of any worth on the grounds that they do not individually possess the power of subpoena over other nation states to produce evidence that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the state conducing the inquiry. The obvious choice then is of course to resort to the UN. Regrettably, the General Assembly of the UN is in exactly the same position as individual states are with respect to the international power of subpoena. The only body with such a power is in fact the Security Council of the UN, and this body has ceased to deal with any and all matters relating to the Lockerbie incident (see Security Council binding resolution of 12th September 2003, which states, in operative para 3, that it “hereby removes this item from the list of matters of which the Council is seized”). Therefore, on the assumption that the Security Council may be reluctant to revoke its resolution and that the General Assembly has so far expressed no interest in opening an inquiry, we are at a loss to know how matters could be turned around in New York.
 
Nevertheless, someone of your experience, political acumen and standing as First Minister of Scotland will assuredly manage to make a deeper impact than we have. In that regard, we (JFM committee and signatories) will stand four square behind you in all your endeavours.
 
Should your attempts prove unsuccessful, at least you will have peace of mind in the knowledge that Scotland, unlike any other nation involved in this, is in a position to open its own inquiry without having to concern itself too greatly on the issue of international subpoena powers given that: 

·        The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
·        The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
·        The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
·        Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
·        Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
·        The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
·        Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice. 

Therefore, much if not all the documentation, and many of the witnesses required to testify before such an inquiry, already lies within the jurisdiction of Scots Law. Thus, no difficulty whatsoever ought to be posed if the Scottish Government itself ultimately decides to open an inquiry into matters relating to the Lockerbie tragedy.
 
Not only do we wish to thank you for your most encouraging public comments and offer you our full support behind any course of action you may take to set up an inquiry, but we wish, moreover, to extend to you a warm invitation to add your name to the list of signatories who have over the last year supported the JFM inquiry campaign. By joining this group, you will be consulted as to strategy and kept up-to-date on all its activities. We are an egalitarian organisation. Whilst some signatories may choose a passive role, others have played an active part in formulating and forwarding our aims throughout. It is an individual choice. Justice for Megrahi is simply grateful to have the support of all of its signatories. Since it is clear that you so evidently identify with our aims, you are most welcome to join us.
 
We are confident that in the points we have made above we speak not only for a large portion of the bereaved of the Lockerbie tragedy, but also for many of the ordinary citizens of Scotland and elsewhere who would like to see a more satisfactory resolution to this issue. Furthermore, it is important to mention that for the inhabitants of the town of Lockerbie to be constantly reminded that their home is synonymous with this appalling event must be intolerable, and an open public inquiry covering events from December 1988 to the present day might contribute in some small way towards returning the town to a degree of normality.
 
We look forward to your response to our invitation and thank you for your time and attention.

Justice For Megrahi committee put Salmond on the spot

[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

The Justice for Megrahi Committee, the group who have garnered an international coalition of signatories to a petition calling for a full investigation of the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath, have written to the First Minister querying his refusal to sign their petition, accusing him of raising "more questions than answers" in his response to the invitation.

"Albeit that he has declined offer, we accept his decision. However, the message delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the invitation raises more questions than it answers insofar as it comes across as confusing and contradictory," the group said.

The committee, who have gathered signatories to their cause as diverse as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky, Kate Adie and Parliamentarians Tam Dalyell and Sir Teddy Taylor, have asked Salmond to respond to six questions raised by the response submitted to them in Salmond's name, in which he appears to contradict his earlier position that he was willing to take part in an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, the discredited trial and the debacle surrounding Megrahi's release.

"Mr Salmond continues to maintain his stance that the Scottish Government is satisfied with the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction, thus setting himself squarely against the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in their referral of the case to the Court of Appeal," the group said.

"He does, however, state that he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the United Nations.

"Further to this, according to the Scottish Government’s spokesman, despite confidence in the safety of the verdict, “there remain concerns on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.” If these “concerns” differ from those of JFM’s, what are they? JFM would very much like the Scottish Government to clarify which “concerns” it is alluding to.

"Mr Salmond also consistently contends, as has been reiterated via the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the JFM invitation, that “the questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

"With the greatest respect, JFM disputes this. The international nature of the event was not such an impediment when it came to trying Messrs al-Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist in the first instance, was it? What then is the obstruction now, when it comes to opening a Holyrood inquiry into the safety of a verdict reached under Scots Law?"

The Justice for Megrahi committee's membership includes Dr Jim Swire and Professor Robert Black QC, whose guidance on these matters allowed the international trial to be convened in the Netherlands under Scots law.

"JFM and its signatories seek clarification on the questions raised here resultant from the statement delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman. We list the questions below for Mr Salmond’s convenience.

"The questions:

-What are the wider concerns over the Lockerbie case as mentioned in the Scottish Government spokesman’s statement?

-Does the Scottish Government have the authority to set up inquiries?

-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, under whose auspices was the 2003 inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, set up?

-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is, therefore, the judiciary of Scotland sacrosanct and beyond the scrutiny of the people of Scotland, who pay for it?

-Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?

-Given that such a considerable quantity of the evidence required for such inquiry falls under Scottish jurisdiction, what precisely is preventing the Scottish Government from opening an inquiry into the evidence already available to it?"

The full letter to Salmond can be read here.

[As regards question 2, I -- in my wonted spirit of helpfulness -- suggest that the First Minister and his advisers start researching their answer by consulting the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), particularly sections 1, 27, 28 and 32.

The coverage of this story on the Newsnet Scotland website can be accessed here.]

Pilger adds name to call for Pan Am 103 inquiry

[This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Renowned investigative journalist John Pilger has added his name to a petition presently before the United Nations for a wide ranging inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath.

Pilger, who has earned and reinforced a reputation for campaigning journalism over five decades, is the latest to add his name to a list of signatories that already includes Archbiashop Desmond Tutu, Professor Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell, Professor Robert Black QC, Dr Jim Swire, Sir Teddy Taylor and Iain Mckie, amongst others.

Last week, UK print and broadcast media were requested en masse to endorse the petition, an invitation previously extended both to First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, as well as the four United States Senators who had called for an investigation focusing on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi.

"The petition presently before the UN has no agenda other than to seek the truth into the whole circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and the debacle that has followed, and continues to this day," said The Firm's Editor, Steven Raeburn, one of the signatories to the petition.

"The list of those requested to and agreeing to back its aims is growing inexorably, and Pilger's reputation in support of truth and justice is peerless. Regardless of one's views on the events surrounding Lockerbie, too many questions do not yet have satisfactory answers, many of which may possibly have been supplied by the Scottish judicial process, had it not been halted.

"An honest and rigourous inquiry into all those events will surely help clear the stain on Scottish justice, and bring some comfort to those bereaved, who have had to suffer years in want of the truth. There is nothing to fear from such an inquiry, unless possibly you believe there is something to hide. The quicker an inquiry is called by those with power to do so, the quicker the answers will be found, and justice served."

[John Pilger has written on the Lockerbie case. Here is an example.]

Address to the People and Government of Scotland

This is the title of an open letter issued by Justice for Megrahi calling upon the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into:

• The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
• The police investigation of the tragedy.
• The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
• The acquittal of Lamin Fhimah and conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
• The SCCRC’s referral of Mr al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
• The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi.

The full text of the address can be read here on the Newsnet Scotland website.

The list of signatories is as follows:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).
Mr John Ashton (Co-author of Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie).
Mr David Benson (Actor and author of the play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business).
Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley, who was killed on flight 103).
Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).
Professor Robert Black QC (Commonly referred to as the architect of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky (Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and human rights commentator of international repute).
Mr Tam Dalyell (Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie).
Mr Robert Forrester (‘Justice for Megrahi’ committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame (Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans (Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the Pan Am 103 incident).
Mr Adam Larson (Editor, writer and proprietor of The Lockerbie Divide).
Mr Iain McKie (Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Charles Norrie (Brother of Tony Norrie, who died aboard UT-772 over Niger on 19th September 1989).
Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).
Mr John Pilger (Author and campaigning human rights journalist of world renown).
Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Mr James Robertson (Writer and author of the recently published And the Land Lay Still).
Doctor Jim Swire (Justice campaigner, Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor (Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu (Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).

[The writer A L Kennedy is the latest person to add her name to the list of signatories.]

US Senators challenged to back inquiry into Lockerbie saga

[This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The following are excerpts:]

The four United States Senators who called for the postponed hearings into the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi have been challenged to add their names to a petition currently endorsed by an international coalition of signatories into the full circumstances of the Pan Am 103 debacle, after one of them called for a “longer term, multidimensional inquiry” in the affair.

Senator Robert Menéndez, set to chair the original Senate hearings that would have looked at BP‘s links to the release said: “no witness of consequence has the courage to step forward and clear the air. They would prefer to sweep this under the rug."

“Because of this stonewalling, we are shifting our efforts to a longer-term, multidimensional inquiry into the release of al-Megrahi. The hearing will be postponed and rescheduled, and it will be coupled with an investigation into al-Megrahi’s release,” he added.

Today, the Senators, Kirsten Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg , Robert Menendez and Charles Schumer have been challenged to add their names to a petition submitted to the UN, signed by noteable figures including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Tam Dalyell, by original signatories including Professor Noam Chomksy, Professor Robert Black and Dr Jim Swire and as well as the committee of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.

“On the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice,” the letter to the US Senators says.

“This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release.

“We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.”

Last week First Minister Alex Salmond was pressed by the same coalition to initiate a full public inquiry. Others, such as Dr Hans Kochler and MSP Christine Grahame, as well as newspaper Leaders across the UK, have called separately for a wider analysis of the circumstances surrounding the Pan Am 103 affair and the discredited conviction against Al Megrahi.

“Professor Robert Black, oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist and Dr Hans Köchler -International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan- have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is?” the letter continues.

“If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.”

Hundreds sign petition seeking inquiry into Lockerbie bomber conviction

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]

A petition urging ministers to hold an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been signed by almost 1,000 people in its first week.

Campaigners launched the petition, calling on MSPs to put pressure on the Scottish Government to re-examine the evidence presented at the 2001 trial of Abdelbaset Ali al Megrahi at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. Since then, hundreds of signatories have come forward including award-winning novelists AL Kennedy, James Robertson, and Aonghas MacNeacail and senior figures within the legal community, such as Len Murray ... Ian Hamilton QC, most famous for stealing the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey, and Hector MacQueen, the Scots law professor and a vice-president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Notable signatories from outwith Scotland include Benedict Birnberg, the retired human rights solicitor who acted for Virgin tycoon Richard Branson and Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, among others, during his 40-year career.

The petition has also been signed by about 100 people from Malta, where the bomb which caused the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103, claiming 270 lives, was said to have been smuggled on board.

Some long-term Lockerbie campaigners, including Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the mid-air explosion, believe that Megrahi, the only man convicted of playing a part in the atrocity and who was released from prison on compassionate grounds last year, is innocent. Robertson, a former Booker longlist nominee, whose latest novel, And The Land Stood Still, was published this month, said he had felt strongly about the Lockerbie issue for several years, but had only become "actively engaged" over the last year.

"When Megrahi was released the political shenanigans detracted attention from the important issue: the safety of the verdict at the Camp Zeist trial," he said.

"If you look at the original trial it seems the evidence on which Megrahi was convicted was very slight, in my view. Since then we've learned a lot more, but it hasn't been dealt with by the courts."

Robertson said he has taken a stand because he fears that when Megrahi dies, the truth will never be told. "It is crucial for the relatives because they feel, 22 years after the event, that they still don't know what happened and who was responsible," he said.

"There is also a stain on the Scottish justice system, as this does not look or feel right. As long as the answers are not addressed this stain will not be removed."

The petition was raised by the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, which includes Swire and Professor Robert Black QC, widely credited with coming up with the framework for Megrahi's unique trial, which was held in a foreign jurisdiction but under Scots law.

Dr Swire, who has long been convinced that Megrahi is innocent, said yesterday he was pleased with the response to date.

"No Scottish lawyer I know of believes in the integrity of the verdict. All it takes for this situation to continue is for good men to do nothing so I would urge people to sign the petition now."

Salmond pressed to instigate inquiry into Pan Am 103 by international coalition ...

[This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

First Minister Alex Salmond has been called upon by an international coalition of signatories including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, academic Professor Noam Chomsky, former Father of the House Tam Dalyell and Professor Robert Black QC to institute a "full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy."

The call comes amidst growing international clamour for an investigation, triggered initially by US Senators who wished to probe the connections between the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi and oil company BP. A letter endorsed by all the signatories, including relatives groups and the Justice for Megrahi campaign, calls on Salmond to initiate an inquiry "to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day."

Others, such as Dr Hans Koechler and MSP Christine Grahame, as well as newspaper Leaders across the UK, have called separately for a wider analysis of the circumstances surrounding the Pan Am 103 affair and the discredited conviction against Al Megrahi.

"In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release. In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition)" the letter to Salmond says.

"Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.

"From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair."

The Firm's Editor Steven Raeburn was also asked to sign the original petition in September 2009, in addition to tonight's letter to Salmond, and has done so.

"Given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow," the letter adds.

"We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start."

The letter marks one of the the final public acts of Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, who announced his retirement from public life today.

[The full text of the letter to the First Minister can be read here.]

Former diplomat urges MacAskill to press for UN Lockerbie inquiry

[This is the headline over an article on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Patrick Haseldine, a former diplomat under John Major's Westminster administration, has pressed Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to take active steps to initiate an international inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, pointing out that MacAskill pledged to support such an inquiry should it convene.

Haseldine is among the signatories of an open letter addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly asking the United Nations to 'institute a full public inquiry.

"I'm very pleased to note from your statement that you have committed the Scottish Government to 'fully co-operate in such an inquiry'. However, a UN member state must first table a resolution at the General Assembly, and get a majority of votes in favour, before a Lockerbie inquiry can be instituted," he said.

"On 3 October 2009, another signatory, Professor Robert Black QC, wrote to Malta's Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Tonio Borg, requesting Malta to table the necessary UNGA resolution. I think it would be helpful at this stage if you were to take an early opportunity to contact the Maltese Government, and reiterate your pledge that the Scottish Government will co-operate fully in a [Malta-sponsored] United Nations inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster."

Signatories to the UN letter include Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, campaigner Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell and members of both UK Families Flight 103 and the Justice for Megrahi campaign.

Lockerbie bombing 'should be investigated by independent inquiry'

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

A senior human rights lawyer has called for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing as controversy intensifies over the convicted bomber's early release on medical grounds.

Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction.

Miller told The Guardian that the UK government should release a secret intelligence report that the Scottish criminal cases review commission said could – on its own – have been enough to have freed Megrahi on appeal. It was withheld at his trial.

The document is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb. The release of the document was banned in 2008 by David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, leading to a lengthy legal battle by Megrahi's lawyers which ended when the Libyan abandoned his appeal because of his terminal cancer. (...)

Miller said the row over Megrahi's medical status was an "undignified and unhelpful distraction" from the more important issue of addressing unresolved questions about his guilt.

It has emerged that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky are among the signatories of a petition calling for an inquiry into the case.

[The list of signatories can be seen here. Kate Adie has just written to Justice for Megrahi asking that her name be added to the list.

Unsurprisingly, the Tory-supporting Telegraph website is running an editorial headed "Lockerbie bomber: MacAskill should resign". The Tories have minimal electoral support in Scotland.]

Malta to investigate evidence of key Lockerbie witness

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

Malta is preparing to launch an investigation into the evidence one of the key trial witnesses who helped convict Abdelbasset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie bombing.

Government officials want to look at the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified the Libyan as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am Flight 103.

Mr Gauci ran a clothes shop, in [Sliema], Malta in 1988, and claimed Megrahi purchased an incriminating piece of clothing found among the debris of the aircraft.

But he has long been dogged by accusations that he concocted the story to receive a multi-million payout from the US.

Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds in August, is running an internet campaign to prove his innocence.

The former Libyan secret agent has accused America of "buying evidence" by paying Mr Gauci $2 million (£1.2m) under the Rewards for Justice programme.

The international outcry over Megrahi's release has finally persuaded the Maltese authorities to consider an inquiry.

A Maltese legal official told The Daily Telegraph: "Tony Gauci is an area where we have to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this.

"There was never enough proof, to be frank, on the circumstances of his evidence and there is pressure coming from many quarters on Malta to move to resolve the issue." (...)

A review of Megrahi's conviction by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007 also revealed that Mr Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police but had made a series of "contradictory" statements.

Critics claim he manufactured his testimony after prompting by American agents who already had Megrahi in their sights and were desperate to get a conviction.

Relatives of the Scottish victims of the bombing have also voiced doubts about Megrahi's conviction. (...)

Campaigners for an investigation into the collection of evidence and subsequent trial of Megrahi before a Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands said Mr Gauci was peripheral to efforts to find justice.

"I don't think he's of much use," said Robert Black, a Scottish QC who campaigns on Lockerbie. "He says what he thinks people want him to say." [RB: The reporter has completely misunderstood what I was saying. The trial judges' assessment of Gauci as credible and reliable was absolutely crucial to their conviction of Megrahi. If it can be demonstrated that Gauci was neither credible nor reliable, the foundation of that conviction completely disappears.]

Mr Black has co-operated with Dr Jim Swire, who's daughter Flora was one of 11 people who died in the village when Flight 103 exploded above Lockerbie in 1988 killing 270.

Both men are signatories to a letter to the United Nations General Assembly calling for an international inquiry into the tragedy.

"Malta is well placed to ask for this because its airport was stigmatised by the verdict," Mr Black said. "Malta has proved it could not be involved. It was in fact one of the very few places in the world that carried out physical reconciliation by baggage handlers at that time."

Dr Swire has threatened the government with legal action to overturn the Lockerbie verdict.

Mr Gauci now refuses to respond to questions about his controversial testimony. His last known residence was a well-guarded house shared with his brother in the Maltese suburb.

[What follows is from a report on the website of the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]

Malta has denied reports in the Daily Telegraph that it was to investigate the evidence of one of the key witnesses who helped convict the Lockerbie bomber.

According to the newspaper, the Maltese government wants to examine the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am flight 103. (...)

The Telegraph quoted a Maltese legal official as saying: "Tony Gauci is an area we want to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this."

But Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told timesofmalta.com the report was untrue.

[The MaltaMedia website report on the issue contains the following:]

The Government has categorically denied that any Government official said that the Maltese Government is preparing to look into the testimony that Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the said trial. The Maltese Government is not prepared to do any such thing.

Since 1988 successive Maltese Governments have always maintained that the bomb which downed the Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced. The Maltese Government hopes that this statement will put an end to this kind of speculation once and for all.

"A freak show extension of foreign policy"?

[What follows is excerpted from an article by William Paul published in Scotland on Sunday on 12 December 1999:]

So it begins. The two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing have appeared before the special Scottish court in the Netherlands and the process of justice according to Scots law must run its course in all its ponderous panoply.

If doubters still regard the whole affair as some kind of international cover-up, the sight of Lord Sutherland in his cream and crimson robes following the mace-bearer to a high-backed leather chair at a makeshift bench in the corner of an old American gymnasium should have clearly demonstrated that the politicians and diplomats are no longer in control. Any covert agreement brokered by the United Nations to limit the scope of evidence or ignore the more embarrassing past behaviour of a country’s security services is worthless. If it exists, as has been suggested, the signatories are fooling themselves. Now that the law has taken over, unpredictability reigns and there can be no guarantees.

Last week in the Netherlands, the defence QCs at a preliminary hearing acknowledged they were "not arguing about points of fact, but points of law" as they attempted to have the first charge of conspiracy to murder dropped from the indictment.  (...)

If the conspiracy happened abroad then the Scottish court, despite being deliberately set up outside Scotland for the purposes of neutrality, would not have jurisdiction. 

Lord Sutherland dismissed the argument as "illogical" but was also mindful that it was not the affront to common sense it seemed, but contained its own compelling brand of legal logic. He therefore allowed an appeal against his judgment where the issues will once again be rehearsed in open court. The whole trial, when it actually gets under way in May, more than a year after the Libyans surrendered to answer the charges against them, will be like this; a self-conscious display of scrupulous fairness and attention to detail, an obsessive desire to appreciate opposing points of view, and a firm insistence that justice will be seen to be done. 

Scotland has already settled in well to the little part of foreign land it has been allocated Kamp van Zeist, a former American military base that is now an outdoor museum – for the approaching trial. With the courtroom proper still under construction, Kamp van Zeist’s gymnasium was pressed into service last week as temporary accommodation for preliminary legal skirmishes. No sooner had the QCs crossed the line with Dutch politie on one side and Scots police on the other, than they donned their wigs and gowns and paired off to pace up and down just as they traditionally do in Parliament Hall at the Supreme Courts in Edinburgh to prevent their conversations being overheard. In another part, where US airmen had whiled away the Cold War playing basketball, academics from Glasgow University patiently explained the legal system to a knowledge-hungry international media, including a couple of Russians who nodded knowingly at the motto to the lion and unicorn coat-of-arms, Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. 

Beyond the partition wall in the bottom quarter of the gym, the press were divided from the legal teams by the kind of red-twisted rope that usually guards antique furniture in stately homes, and the lawyers were divided from the accused by bullet-proof screens on wheels. 

The Libyans, always immaculately groomed, were led in and out from the underground detention area to the dock by Scottish police officers holding their wrists. Interpreters sat beside them whispering translations of arcane legal terms and Latin phrases in their ears, occasionally gesticulating with a dramatic wave of an arm or the raising of eyebrows at apparently unimportant moments. Megrahi, the older of the two accused, sat throughout wearing an overcoat as if the winter cold was somehow penetrating the windowless walls surrounding him. 

It will be much like this in the courtroom for the duration of the trial – six months or two years, no-one really knows – as the prosecution evidence is presented and the past is recreated in a hundred small cameo episodes that build, it will be claimed, into the worst terrorist outrage of an era when the world was ordered very differently. 

The framework for what is to come is contained in the narrative of the indictment which sets out the course of events that the Crown will seek to prove, in particular that the two accused were agents of the Libyan Intelligence Service, acting in concert with others and travelling around to gather electronic timers and components for the bomb that was eventually to be loaded into the hold of Flight 103. Colin Boyd QC, Solicitor General, last week gave a hint of what will be claimed by briefly describing an agent, using a false passport, embarking on a ‘dry run’ on the route from Libya to Malta to Germany one month before the bombing in December 1988. 

It promises to be compelling stuff, related to the outside world principally by newspaper reports since the only television coverage so far agreed will be closed-circuit links to Syracuse University in the US for American victims’ families, and a location in London for British relatives.

The effectiveness of Scots law will be as much under test as the guilt or innocence of the two Libyans. The international understanding, replete with secret meetings and nudge-nudge assurances, was crucial in bringing about this unprecedented trial, but if the Libyan government thought its intelligence service would be above criticism, and if the US government thought its intelligence agents would not be required to account for their actions, they will very soon be disabused of the notion. The law, once set in motion, can be relentless in drawing out a infinite number of competing strands in its attempts to find the truth, and what is said in court can be reported without restraint 

Juries are regarded as the ‘masters of the facts’ compared with the judges’ role as ‘master of the law’. Since there is to be no jury in this case, the burden is on Lord Sutherland and his two colleagues to be masters of both and ensure that all doubts are dispelled before a verdict is reached. 

There were many people who believed a Lockerbie trial would never happen because powerful vested interests did not want it. There are still sceptics who see the whole thing as a freak show extension of foreign policy, a forum for political manipulation rather than honest disclosure. The former were proved wrong, and so will the latter be. Open court is a very dangerous place for those who prefer to inhabit the shadows. The simple principle of ‘having their day in court’ is not confined to the Libyan accused who hope to prove their innocence. It is also there for the bereaved families who, four days before Christmas, must endure the 11th anniversary of the bombing hoping they will soon know the real story of what happened to Flight 103. 

The outcome is, of course, entirely unpredictable whatever expert authorities may say. Whether the truth will be uncovered is unknowable because, as was argued last week, it is as much to do with the law as it is to do with the facts. The Scottish court in the Netherlands can only do its best, according to the rules of law, by examining the strength of the evidence put in front of it. In the final analysis, whatever the verdict at the end of it all, people will make up their own minds.

[RB: Like the author, I too in 1999 would have said: “There were many people who believed a Lockerbie trial would never happen because powerful vested interests did not want it. There are still sceptics who see the whole thing as a freak show extension of foreign policy, a forum for political manipulation rather than honest disclosure. The former were proved wrong, and so will the latter be.”  To the immense discredit of the Scottish criminal justice system, William Paul and I have been shown to be both wrong and naive. Honest disclosure (by the prosecution) did not happen. Was there political manipulation? Possibly. What there certainly was, were findings on the evidence -- and hence a conviction -- that no reasonable court could have arrived at.]

World Court Lockerbie case dropped

[What follows is excerpted from a document to be found on The Hague Justice Portal:]

On 10 September 2003, after more than ten years of proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the disputes between Libya and both the United Kingdom and the United States concerning the extradition of two Libyan citizens were removed from the Court’s List following the Parties’ withdrawal from the proceedings. (...)

By two letters of 9 September 2003, the Governments of Libya and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and of Libya and the United States of America on the other, notified the Court that they had "agreed to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings".

Following those notifications, on 10 September 2003 the President of the Court, Judge Shi, made an Order in each case placing on record the discontinuance of the proceedings with prejudice, by agreement of the Parties, and directing the removal of the case from the Court’s List.

In the meantime, Libya had agreed that the two accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Ali Amin Khalifa Fhimah, be tried by five Scottish Judges sitting in a neutral Court, in the Netherlands. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was found guilty on 31 January 2001. He was convicted of 270 counts of murder for his part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah was found not guilty and released.

[Here is what I have previously written about this chapter in the Lockerbie affair:]

[This] is what I wrote in an article headed “The Lockerbie Disaster” published in (1999) 3 Edinburgh Law Review 85-95:

On 27 November 1991 the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States each issued a statement calling upon the Libyan Government to hand over the two accused to either the Scottish or the American authorities for trial.  Requests for their extradition were transmitted to the Government of Libya by diplomatic channels.  No extradition treaties are in force between Libya on the one hand and the United Kingdom and United States on the other.

Libyan internal law, in common with the laws of many countries in the world, does not permit the extradition of its own nationals for trial overseas.  The Government of Libya accordingly contended that the affair should be resolved through the application of the provisions of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, to which all three Governments are signatories.  Under article 7 of that Convention a state in whose territory persons accused of terrorist offences against aircraft are resident has a choice aut dedere aut judicare, either to hand over the accused for trial in the courts of the state bringing the accusation or to take the steps necessary to have the accused brought trial in its own domestic courts.  In purported compliance with the second of these options, the Libyan authorities arrested the two accused and appointed a Supreme Court judge as examining magistrate to consider the evidence and prepare the case against them.  Not entirely surprisingly, perhaps, the UK and US Governments have refused to make available to the examining magistrate the evidence that they claim to have amassed against the accused who, to this day, remain under house arrest.

The United Nations Security Council first became involved in the Lockerbie affair  on 21 January 1992 when it passed Resolution 731 strongly deploring the Government of Libya's lack of co-operation in the matter and urging it to respond to the British and American requests contained in their statements of 27 November 1991.  This was followed by Security Council Resolution 748 (31 March 1992) requiring Libya to comply with the requests within a stipulated period of time, failing which a list of sanctions specified in the Resolution would be imposed.  Compliance was not forthcoming and the sanctions duly came into  effect.  On 11 November 1993 the Security Council, by Resolution 883, further extended the range and application of the sanctions.  The imposition of sanctions under the last two Resolutions was justified by the Security Council by reference to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations on the basis that Libya's failure to extradite the accused constituted a threat to peace.

On 3 March 1992 (after the passing of Security Council Resolution 731, but before Resolutions 748 and 883), Libya presented applications to the International Court of Justice in The Hague for declarations that she was entitled under Article 7 of the 1971 Montreal Convention to put the accused on trial in Libya and that the United Kingdom and the United States were in breach of their obligations under that Convention in insisting upon trial in the UK or the USA.  The Governments of the United Kingdom and United States sought to have these applications dismissed without a hearing on the merits on the grounds inter alia that (1) the ICJ had no jurisdiction to consider them and (2) the Security Council Resolutions of 31 March 1992 and 11 November 1993, imposing upon Libya an international obligation contended by the UK and the USA to be superior to that embodied in Article 7 of the Montreal Convention, had rendered the applications pointless.  On 27 February 1998 the judges of the ICJ by substantial majorities [RB: 13 to 3] (and with the American and British judges dissenting) rejected the submissions of the UK and the USA, thereby clearing the way for decisions at some time in the future on the merits of Libya's applications.

RB: This judgement was followed within six months by the UK and US volte face whereby they agreed to a neutral venue trial. Here is what I wrote in the article mentioned above:

For four years and seven months the Government of the United Kingdom (and that of the United States) consistently maintained that the "neutral venue" scheme proposed by the writer and accepted by the Libyan Government and defence lawyers in January 1994 was impossible, impracticable and inherently undesirable.  For a flavour of the strength and vehemence of the Government's opposition, the interested reader is referred to "The Lockerbie Trial"  1998 Scots Law Times (News) 9 by Lord Hardie, a response by the Lord Advocate to the present writer's "The Lockerbie Proposal" 1997 Scots Law Times (News) 304.

However, on 24 August 1998 the Governments of the United Kingdom and United States announced that they had reversed their stance on the matter.  In a letter of that date to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, the Acting Permanent Representatives of the UK and the USA stated:

".... in the interest of resolving this situation in a way which will allow justice to be done, our Governments are prepared, as an exceptional measure, to arrange for the two accused to be tried before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands.  After close consultation with the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, we are pleased to confirm that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has agreed to facilitate arrangements for such a court.  It would be a Scottish court and would follow normal Scots law and procedure in every respect except for the replacement of the jury by a panel of three Scottish High Court judges.  The Scottish rules of evidence and procedure, and all the guarantees of fair trial provided by the law of Scotland, would apply."

RB: Once the trial and appeal at Camp Zeist were concluded, the World Court case brought by Libya was quietly dropped, to the enormous relief of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, who were in fear and trembling that the court was going to recognise what would, in effect, have been a form of judicial review of the legality of the acts of the Security Council. And that would never do. Good heavens, it might have judicially prevented the invasion of Iraq!