Most of the Scottish and UK Sunday newspapers have lengthy articles, commentaries and features on the past week's developments in the saga of the fate of Abdelbaset Megrahi. They consider the implications of his decision to abandon his appeal for the man himself, for the relatives of those killed at Lockerbie, for the nations most closely involved and for the Scottish criminal justice system. With one exception, all of them assume that Mr Megrahi will be repatriated later this week. The exception is Scotland on Sunday which has a report by Political Editor Eddie Barnes headed "Lockerbie bomber faces death in jail" which reads in part:
'The Lockerbie bomber's health has deteriorated to the point that he may die before any decision is made about his release from jail, Scotland on Sunday has discovered.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is believed to be no longer receiving treatment for his prostate cancer but having pain relief offered to those in the final stages of the disease.
'Government sources confirmed yesterday that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill will not reveal his decision on whether or not to release the convicted terrorist this week, and may even take until the end of the month before showing his hand. (...)
'It had been widely expected that MacAskill would make his decision this week.
'But Scotland on Sunday has been told that a decision this week "can be ruled out", as MacAskill is awaiting more submissions from the prison governor at Greenock and the Scottish Parole Board.'
A further article entitled "The end game: The fate of Lockerbie bomber" in the same newspaper can be read here The first of these articles should be contrasted with one appearing in the Sunday Mail which can be read here. The Mail on Sunday has an article to the effect that the consultants treating Mr Megrahi have reported that he has no longer than three months to live.
The Sunday Herald's coverage consists of a four-page spread headed "Lockerbie: after the conspiracies ... the cover up?" This is divided into sections entitled "MacAskill in the eye of the storm"; "The legal system has nothing to be ashamed of ... unlike Holyrood" by Scottish Tory legal spokesman Paul McBride QC; "I will never rest until I know who killed my daughter ... and why" on the reactions of relatives such as Dr Jim Swire; "An inquiry is the only hope of getting a new criminal probe" on the case for setting up an inquiry now that the appeal is being abandoned; and "A potent mix of politics and oil" on the politics that may lie behind abandonment of the appeal and repatriation.
The same newspaper has another article headlined "Holyrood set to back calls for Lockerbie public inquiry". It reads in part:
'The Scottish government is likely to back a comprehensive public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster after all legal proceedings are resolved. First minister Alex Salmond's administration is said to be "very relaxed" about either a United Nations probe or a joint inquiry between Holyrood and Westminster into the terrorist atrocity.
'It is understood a stand-alone Scottish investigation has been downplayed as an option due to the limited powers the SNP government would have to compel witnesses. (...)
'The families of the 270 victims fear that dropping the appeal will end the possibility of finding out the truth behind the worst terrorist act on British soil.
'However, it is understood the Scottish government has accepted a public inquiry into the disaster should take place once Megrahi is home and his appeal has been dropped.
'Officials have explored the possibility of Salmond's administration launching its own inquiry, but the idea has been deemed a non-starter.
'This is because the terms of the Scotland Act, which sets out the powers of the devolved parliament, would hinder an inquiry's ability to demand documents and compel witnesses to give evidence. It is understood Salmond's government would prefer a joint cross-border inquiry with Westminster, which would have far greater powers.
'Another option would be for the United Nations to launch an investigation that would command international co-operation.
'However, Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University law school said the UK government would never consent to a cross-border investigation, adding that a stand-alone Scottish inquiry would be valuable.
'"It would look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication. All of them are within the powers of the Scottish government and Scottish parliament.
'"It wouldn't satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal and one which can be achieved within Scotland."'
The Sunday Times publishes an article headed "US blamed Iran for Lockerbie bomb". It reads in part:
'American intelligence documents blaming Iran for the Lockerbie bombing would have been produced in court if the Libyan convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist attack had not dropped his appeal.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer expected to be freed this week, had instructed his lawyers to produce US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cables implicating the so-called “rogue state”.
'The memo suggests Iran was behind the attack on Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, in response to the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by the USS Vincennes, an American warship, five months earlier.
'One document the defence team had planned to produce was a memo from the DIA dated September 24, 1989. It states: “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
'“The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) leader, for a sum of $1m (£600,700).
'“$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammad Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.”
'The document is included in an unpublished report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a public body which considers miscarriage of justice claims, and which in 2007 cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction.
'The report also cites a DIA briefing in December 1989 entitled “Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation” which named Iran as the likely state sponsor of the bombing.
'The briefing stated that the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of the Iran Air 655 airbus may have been the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation.
'The DIA briefing discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. It stated: “Following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya [in 1986], Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”
'Robert Baer, a retired senior CIA agent who claims Iran was behind the attack, has alleged that the Americans were wary of pursuing the country in case it disrupted oil supplies and damaged the economy.'
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Lockerbie bombing: victim's father to sue
The leading campaigner for justice over the Lockerbie tragedy, Dr Jim Swire, is planning a ground-beaking legal action more than 20 years after the terrorist attack that claimed 270 lives.
Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, is preparing to sue the Scottish prosecution service because he is convinced it deliberately blocked attempts to bring his daughter's "real" killers to court.
He is planning the action under human rights legislation just three days after it was disclosed that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be released later this month. (...)
Dr Swire, 73, a spokesman for the relatives of the victims, is convinced that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. (...)
Dr Swire has told of his determination to bring his daughter's killers to justice in a letter sent to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, in which he is critical of the Crown Office, which is responsible for criminal prosecutions in Scotland.
In the letter, he highlights the fact that evidence from a Heathrow security guard was suppressed for more than 12 years and did not figure at Megrahi's trial in 2000 and 2001.
The guard revealed that Pan Am's baggage area at Heathrow was broken into 17 hours before Flight 103 took off from the airport for New York.
Dr Swire believes that this was probably when the bomb was planted, not much earlier on a flight from Malta.
In his letter, sent on Aug 10, Dr Swire says that he is now "reluctantly" looking at two projects:
- "To take action against the Crown Office under Human Rights legislation, since I now believe that the Crown Office has deliberately obstructed my rights to know who killed my daughter and why she was not protected, and continues to do so," and
- "To seek annulment of the findings of the Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry [of 1990] on grounds of withholding of evidence about Heathrow, and then to seek a new FAI or legitimate equivalent in its place." (...)
In 2003, Ahmed Own, Libya's ambassador to the United Nations, submitted a letter to the Security Council in which Libya accepted "responsibility for the actions of its officials" regarding the bombing.
Yet the following year, Sukri Ghanem, the Libyan Prime Minister, insisted the compensation payment was the "price of peace" with the West and was simply designed to remove sanctions
Lawyers for Megrahi had launched a second appeal over his conviction – the first was unsuccessful – but it was revealed on Friday that the convicted killer has now applied to abandon this action.
His supporters are optimistic he will be freed within days because of his serious illness. The Crown Office insists the conviction is safe and that no decision on his release has yet been taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary.
[From an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter.]
Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, is preparing to sue the Scottish prosecution service because he is convinced it deliberately blocked attempts to bring his daughter's "real" killers to court.
He is planning the action under human rights legislation just three days after it was disclosed that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be released later this month. (...)
Dr Swire, 73, a spokesman for the relatives of the victims, is convinced that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. (...)
Dr Swire has told of his determination to bring his daughter's killers to justice in a letter sent to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, in which he is critical of the Crown Office, which is responsible for criminal prosecutions in Scotland.
In the letter, he highlights the fact that evidence from a Heathrow security guard was suppressed for more than 12 years and did not figure at Megrahi's trial in 2000 and 2001.
The guard revealed that Pan Am's baggage area at Heathrow was broken into 17 hours before Flight 103 took off from the airport for New York.
Dr Swire believes that this was probably when the bomb was planted, not much earlier on a flight from Malta.
In his letter, sent on Aug 10, Dr Swire says that he is now "reluctantly" looking at two projects:
- "To take action against the Crown Office under Human Rights legislation, since I now believe that the Crown Office has deliberately obstructed my rights to know who killed my daughter and why she was not protected, and continues to do so," and
- "To seek annulment of the findings of the Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry [of 1990] on grounds of withholding of evidence about Heathrow, and then to seek a new FAI or legitimate equivalent in its place." (...)
In 2003, Ahmed Own, Libya's ambassador to the United Nations, submitted a letter to the Security Council in which Libya accepted "responsibility for the actions of its officials" regarding the bombing.
Yet the following year, Sukri Ghanem, the Libyan Prime Minister, insisted the compensation payment was the "price of peace" with the West and was simply designed to remove sanctions
Lawyers for Megrahi had launched a second appeal over his conviction – the first was unsuccessful – but it was revealed on Friday that the convicted killer has now applied to abandon this action.
His supporters are optimistic he will be freed within days because of his serious illness. The Crown Office insists the conviction is safe and that no decision on his release has yet been taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary.
[From an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter.]
Lockerbie bomber may be out next week
[The following are excerpts from an article published yesterday in The Times of Malta, before the announcement that Abdelbaset Megrahi had lodged a Minute of Abandonment of his appeal.]
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing could be freed on compassionate grounds next week, which means that his appeal, which will question the Maltese connection to the massacre, would be able to continue.
According to the BBC and Sky News, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, who is the only person ever convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, could be released next week from the Scottish prison where he is serving 27 years. (...)
Speaking to this newspaper, Robert Black, a former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, welcomed the news.
"If it is indeed the case that Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release and returned to Libya before the beginning of Ramadan, I am delighted. I believe that he was wrongly convicted and should never have been in prison in the first place. But irrespective of his guilt or innocence, on simple humanitarian and compassionate grounds, he should be allowed to return to die in his homeland surrounded by his family and friends."
Professor Black was responsible for drawing up the framework for the trial, which was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law and which led to Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001.
But he has consistently criticised the outcome, and also finds holes in the theory that the bomb left Malta.
He said, it would be a tragedy if some murky back-channel deal between the Scottish (or UK) Government has been entered into for the appeal to be abandoned in return for compassionate release being granted. "There are suggestions that this may be the case. I am, however, reluctant to believe that the Scottish (or UK) government could sink to such depths."
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
The 57-year-old was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
His lawyer says it has spread to other parts of his body and is at an advanced stage, while his wife Aisha Megrahi told AFP earlier this year that he was "in danger of dying".
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing could be freed on compassionate grounds next week, which means that his appeal, which will question the Maltese connection to the massacre, would be able to continue.
According to the BBC and Sky News, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, who is the only person ever convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, could be released next week from the Scottish prison where he is serving 27 years. (...)
Speaking to this newspaper, Robert Black, a former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, welcomed the news.
"If it is indeed the case that Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release and returned to Libya before the beginning of Ramadan, I am delighted. I believe that he was wrongly convicted and should never have been in prison in the first place. But irrespective of his guilt or innocence, on simple humanitarian and compassionate grounds, he should be allowed to return to die in his homeland surrounded by his family and friends."
Professor Black was responsible for drawing up the framework for the trial, which was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law and which led to Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001.
But he has consistently criticised the outcome, and also finds holes in the theory that the bomb left Malta.
He said, it would be a tragedy if some murky back-channel deal between the Scottish (or UK) Government has been entered into for the appeal to be abandoned in return for compassionate release being granted. "There are suggestions that this may be the case. I am, however, reluctant to believe that the Scottish (or UK) government could sink to such depths."
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
The 57-year-old was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
His lawyer says it has spread to other parts of his body and is at an advanced stage, while his wife Aisha Megrahi told AFP earlier this year that he was "in danger of dying".
Awkward questions over Lockerbie won't go away
There will be strenuous denials that any kind of deal has been done with the so-called Lockerbie bomber Abdul al-Megrahi whereby he agrees to drop his appeal against conviction in return for being allowed to return to Libya.
All the same, it will come as a great relief in government circles that the appeal case is unlikely to proceed – not just because of the awkward facts that might emerge but because of the enormous damage that would be done to the system if it was shown that Megrahi had been wrongly convicted.
The Justice Minister Jack Straw is old enough to know that we have a long and shameful tradition, where terrorism is concerned, of imprisoning the wrong people. And the notorious Irish cases in the 1970s and 80s wreaked havoc with the reputation of the police, the intelligence services and the judges.
The offence of which Megrahi was – almost certainly wrongly – convicted after a trial lasting six months before three distinguished Scottish judges was far more serious than anything the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were accused of doing. Resulting in the deaths of 280 innocent people, it was far and away the most serious act of terrorism in our history. So, what if Megrahi's appeal succeeded and it was shown that yet again the security forces and the judges had got it wrong – and this at a time when the Government is trying to introduce more and more draconian measures to deal with the supposed threat of terrorism?
Opposition to giving the police yet more powers would inevitably be boosted and the awkward question would be raised – if not Megrahi then who did it? The official hope, now that Megrahi has applied to drop his appeal, is that we can finally draw a line under Lockerbie and move on.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams, former editor of Private Eye, in today's edition of The Independent. The same newspaper has an article by Jerome Taylor headlined "Al-Megrahi 'pressured into abandoning appeal'".
The Scottish serious daily papers, The Herald and The Scotsman, as might be expected, have extensive coverage of the issue. The Herald's articles can be read here and here (and two letters to the editor here) and The Scotsman's here and here.]
All the same, it will come as a great relief in government circles that the appeal case is unlikely to proceed – not just because of the awkward facts that might emerge but because of the enormous damage that would be done to the system if it was shown that Megrahi had been wrongly convicted.
The Justice Minister Jack Straw is old enough to know that we have a long and shameful tradition, where terrorism is concerned, of imprisoning the wrong people. And the notorious Irish cases in the 1970s and 80s wreaked havoc with the reputation of the police, the intelligence services and the judges.
The offence of which Megrahi was – almost certainly wrongly – convicted after a trial lasting six months before three distinguished Scottish judges was far more serious than anything the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were accused of doing. Resulting in the deaths of 280 innocent people, it was far and away the most serious act of terrorism in our history. So, what if Megrahi's appeal succeeded and it was shown that yet again the security forces and the judges had got it wrong – and this at a time when the Government is trying to introduce more and more draconian measures to deal with the supposed threat of terrorism?
Opposition to giving the police yet more powers would inevitably be boosted and the awkward question would be raised – if not Megrahi then who did it? The official hope, now that Megrahi has applied to drop his appeal, is that we can finally draw a line under Lockerbie and move on.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams, former editor of Private Eye, in today's edition of The Independent. The same newspaper has an article by Jerome Taylor headlined "Al-Megrahi 'pressured into abandoning appeal'".
The Scottish serious daily papers, The Herald and The Scotsman, as might be expected, have extensive coverage of the issue. The Herald's articles can be read here and here (and two letters to the editor here) and The Scotsman's here and here.]
Hole-and-corner deal is worst possible outcome for Lockerbie
It is the worst of outcomes: shoddy, underhand, secretive, unexplained. That the Lockerbie atrocity — with its savage death toll and the 21 years of suffering that followed — should conclude with this hole-and-corner deal is frankly shameful. A convicted terrorist is allowed to return to his country, while the relatives and friends of those who died are deprived of their last slender chance of learning the truth about what happened.
There are already too many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. Now, we are burdened with what looks suspiciously like a cover-up. By withdrawing his appeal, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has left the whole issue of his involvement in the attack unexplained — a black hole of charge and counter-charge that will never be tested in court. (...)
The Scottish government ... has argued all along that its motivation has been a humanitarian one — that allowing al-Megrahi home to die is the act of a compassionate administration, and that it would be insensitive to ignore the pleas of his family, and allow him to die in prison.
That position could only be sustained if, at the same time, it was able to assure the relatives and friends of the victims that the appeal would carry on in his absence, and that the strength of the case against him would be tested in court.
That fiction has now evaporated. The appeal is being dropped, and the Justice Secretary is looking ham-fisted, duped possibly by the Libyans, or worse, complicit with them in a deal where they get their man back, and he is saved the embarrassment of an appeal that might have gone in the Libyan’s favour. For this is the simple outcome: most people who have followed the Lockerbie affair will be convinced that a deal has been struck to avoid the embarrassment of a final appeal. Either it would have upheld al-Megrahi’s conviction, or exposed the fragility of the prosecution case, exposing the Scottish judicial system to ridicule. In both cases political face would be lost.
This, after all, was the highest profile case Scottish judges have ever heard. Its status — in a Scottish court, but on foreign soil — was unprecedented. It rested on one foundation — the unimpeachable reliability of the Scottish legal system.
That reliability was challenged almost from the moment al-Megrahi was convicted and sentenced. Campaigners on his behalf began to unpick central aspects of the prosecution case and — though the wilder conspiracy theories were dismissed — there was still doubt about the scientific trail on which the case rested.
All that, however, was to be addressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which not only allowed a fresh appeal, but indicated that the defence would be permitted wider grounds for advancing new evidence than normal. It was, in short, the vindication of the Scottish judicial system, and most observers expected it to dispose of the principal doubts in the case. Now that opportunity is gone.
The coincidence of the Justice Minister’s decision to consider releasing al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, together with the almost immediate announcement that he was dropping his appeal, is too close for comfort. It will convince sceptics that the prosecution case was falling apart, and had to be abandoned.
It will play into the hands of those who believe this is a stitch-up. And it will expose the Scottish government to charges of duplicity or naivete. For the relatives of the victims it is a betrayal. For anyone who believes in the reliability of the legal system it is a let-down. And for those attempting to shore up trust in government it is simply a farce.
[From an article in The Times by the newspaper's columnist and Scottish Editor, Magnus Linklater. The full text can be read here.]
There are already too many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. Now, we are burdened with what looks suspiciously like a cover-up. By withdrawing his appeal, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has left the whole issue of his involvement in the attack unexplained — a black hole of charge and counter-charge that will never be tested in court. (...)
The Scottish government ... has argued all along that its motivation has been a humanitarian one — that allowing al-Megrahi home to die is the act of a compassionate administration, and that it would be insensitive to ignore the pleas of his family, and allow him to die in prison.
That position could only be sustained if, at the same time, it was able to assure the relatives and friends of the victims that the appeal would carry on in his absence, and that the strength of the case against him would be tested in court.
That fiction has now evaporated. The appeal is being dropped, and the Justice Secretary is looking ham-fisted, duped possibly by the Libyans, or worse, complicit with them in a deal where they get their man back, and he is saved the embarrassment of an appeal that might have gone in the Libyan’s favour. For this is the simple outcome: most people who have followed the Lockerbie affair will be convinced that a deal has been struck to avoid the embarrassment of a final appeal. Either it would have upheld al-Megrahi’s conviction, or exposed the fragility of the prosecution case, exposing the Scottish judicial system to ridicule. In both cases political face would be lost.
This, after all, was the highest profile case Scottish judges have ever heard. Its status — in a Scottish court, but on foreign soil — was unprecedented. It rested on one foundation — the unimpeachable reliability of the Scottish legal system.
That reliability was challenged almost from the moment al-Megrahi was convicted and sentenced. Campaigners on his behalf began to unpick central aspects of the prosecution case and — though the wilder conspiracy theories were dismissed — there was still doubt about the scientific trail on which the case rested.
All that, however, was to be addressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which not only allowed a fresh appeal, but indicated that the defence would be permitted wider grounds for advancing new evidence than normal. It was, in short, the vindication of the Scottish judicial system, and most observers expected it to dispose of the principal doubts in the case. Now that opportunity is gone.
The coincidence of the Justice Minister’s decision to consider releasing al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, together with the almost immediate announcement that he was dropping his appeal, is too close for comfort. It will convince sceptics that the prosecution case was falling apart, and had to be abandoned.
It will play into the hands of those who believe this is a stitch-up. And it will expose the Scottish government to charges of duplicity or naivete. For the relatives of the victims it is a betrayal. For anyone who believes in the reliability of the legal system it is a let-down. And for those attempting to shore up trust in government it is simply a farce.
[From an article in The Times by the newspaper's columnist and Scottish Editor, Magnus Linklater. The full text can be read here.]
Friday, 14 August 2009
Claims of Lockerbie cover-up as only man convicted of bombing drops appeal
Relatives of Lockerbie victims were denied their final chance of discovering the truth yesterday when the only man convicted of the atrocity abruptly dropped his appeal.
The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.
Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)
The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.
Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.
They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”
Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.
But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.
Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.
Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”
He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”
[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]
The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.
Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)
The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.
Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.
They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”
Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.
But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.
Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.
Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”
He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”
[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]
Hillary Clinton calls Kenny MacAskill
QUESTION: Is there anything new on Lockerbie? Can you bring us up to date on what efforts the U.S. is making and its views expressed --
MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, we continue to talk to Scottish authorities about this particular case. Secretary Clinton, in the past day, talked to Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and expressed strongly the United States view that Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part on the bombing of the Pan Am 103 flight.
QUESTION: Just the one call to the justice minister?
MR. CROWLEY: I believe that in the past few days, also the Attorney General has called the same individual.
[From today's US State Department daily press briefing by Philip J Crowley. The full transcript can be read here.]
MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, we continue to talk to Scottish authorities about this particular case. Secretary Clinton, in the past day, talked to Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and expressed strongly the United States view that Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part on the bombing of the Pan Am 103 flight.
QUESTION: Just the one call to the justice minister?
MR. CROWLEY: I believe that in the past few days, also the Attorney General has called the same individual.
[From today's US State Department daily press briefing by Philip J Crowley. The full transcript can be read here.]
The decision to abandon
It is sad that Abdelbaset Megrahi has felt it necessary to abandon his appeal.
The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally denied that any suggestion has ever been made by any official of the Justice Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department to Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal.
Why, if this is true, did he decide to do it?
It may be that Mr Megrahi wished to keep open the option of prisoner transfer, or believes that this may be a more attractive proposition to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Prisoner transfer does require that there be no ongoing legal proceedings and could not be granted until Mr Megrahi’s appeal (and, incidentally, the Crown’s separate appeal regarding the length of the punishment part of his life sentence) had been terminated one way or another.
Or it may be that Mr Megrahi quite independently formed the view that his prospects of being released on compassionate grounds would be maximized by voluntarily abandoning his appeal, and had reached a stage where his desire to return to his homeland to die was so overwhelming that he was prepared to adopt an otherwise unpalatable course of action.
Or could there have been some “deal” between governments which involved abandonment of the appeal as one of its terms? A Libyan official quoted in The Times of Malta has recently referred to a deal or agreement. If there has been any intergovernmental agreement regarding Megrahi’s repatriation, it would be interesting to find out just what it says. But that, of course, is never likely to happen.
Interestingly, Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland's political editor, has posted a delightfully cynical commentary on his blog Blether with Brian. It starts:
'Not sure if, like me, you are a fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
'In one, Holmes' trusty associate Dr Watson asserts that one event, following hard upon another, represents "an amazing coincidence."
'Holmes replies: "The odds are enormous against its being coincidence. No figures could express them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected - MUST be connected. It is for us to find the connection."
'A comparable task confronts those who are trying to understand, fully, the apparent endgame which is under way with regard to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
'Item: Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is actively considering whether to return Megrahi to Libya, either on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer scheme.
'Item: Megrahi's lawyers announce that he is seeking leave of the court to abandon his appeal against conviction, the second such appeal he has lodged.
'We are asked by the Scottish Government to accept that these two incidents are entirely unrelated.
'I refer, my honourable friend, to the reply given earlier by Mr S. Holmes of 221b Baker Street, London.'
The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally denied that any suggestion has ever been made by any official of the Justice Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department to Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal.
Why, if this is true, did he decide to do it?
It may be that Mr Megrahi wished to keep open the option of prisoner transfer, or believes that this may be a more attractive proposition to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Prisoner transfer does require that there be no ongoing legal proceedings and could not be granted until Mr Megrahi’s appeal (and, incidentally, the Crown’s separate appeal regarding the length of the punishment part of his life sentence) had been terminated one way or another.
Or it may be that Mr Megrahi quite independently formed the view that his prospects of being released on compassionate grounds would be maximized by voluntarily abandoning his appeal, and had reached a stage where his desire to return to his homeland to die was so overwhelming that he was prepared to adopt an otherwise unpalatable course of action.
Or could there have been some “deal” between governments which involved abandonment of the appeal as one of its terms? A Libyan official quoted in The Times of Malta has recently referred to a deal or agreement. If there has been any intergovernmental agreement regarding Megrahi’s repatriation, it would be interesting to find out just what it says. But that, of course, is never likely to happen.
Interestingly, Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland's political editor, has posted a delightfully cynical commentary on his blog Blether with Brian. It starts:
'Not sure if, like me, you are a fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
'In one, Holmes' trusty associate Dr Watson asserts that one event, following hard upon another, represents "an amazing coincidence."
'Holmes replies: "The odds are enormous against its being coincidence. No figures could express them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected - MUST be connected. It is for us to find the connection."
'A comparable task confronts those who are trying to understand, fully, the apparent endgame which is under way with regard to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
'Item: Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is actively considering whether to return Megrahi to Libya, either on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer scheme.
'Item: Megrahi's lawyers announce that he is seeking leave of the court to abandon his appeal against conviction, the second such appeal he has lodged.
'We are asked by the Scottish Government to accept that these two incidents are entirely unrelated.
'I refer, my honourable friend, to the reply given earlier by Mr S. Holmes of 221b Baker Street, London.'
Reaction from Christine Grahame MSP
Responding to the news that Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi has dropped his appeal SNP MSP Christine Grahame, who met several times with Megrahi in Greenock prison said:
“I believe that Mr Megrahi has come under pressure from certain quarters to drop his appeal. I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own.
“There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie. Some serious scrutiny will be required to determine exactly why Mr Megrahi is now dropping his appeal and examination of what pressure he has come under.
“A leaked email that I saw this week from an official in the Scottish Justice Department warned that senior Scottish officials were exerting undue pressure to have Megrahi drop his appeal. They appear to have been successful.
“Myself and other campaigners are however determined to fight on to get to the truth behind Lockerbie. The only proper course now is for a full public inquiry and I would restate my call for such an inquiry to be established at the earliest opportunity.
“In the next days, weeks and months new information will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103.”
“I believe that Mr Megrahi has come under pressure from certain quarters to drop his appeal. I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own.
“There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie. Some serious scrutiny will be required to determine exactly why Mr Megrahi is now dropping his appeal and examination of what pressure he has come under.
“A leaked email that I saw this week from an official in the Scottish Justice Department warned that senior Scottish officials were exerting undue pressure to have Megrahi drop his appeal. They appear to have been successful.
“Myself and other campaigners are however determined to fight on to get to the truth behind Lockerbie. The only proper course now is for a full public inquiry and I would restate my call for such an inquiry to be established at the earliest opportunity.
“In the next days, weeks and months new information will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103.”
Abandonment of appeal
[What follows is the text of a press release from Abdelbaset Megrahi's solicitors.]
Since his diagnosis with inoperable prostate cancer in autumn 2008 Mr Megrahi's health has deteriorated. His condition has taken a significant turn for the worse in recent weeks.
Mr Al Megrahi can confirm that on 12th August he applied to the High Court of Justiciary to abandon his appeal against conviction under section 116 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
As the appeal hearing has commenced, and the court seized of the matter, leave of the court is required before the appeal can be formally abandoned.
Notes for Editors
In May 2009 the Libyan Government applied for Mr Al Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya under and in terms of a prisoner transfer treaty negotiated between the UK and Libya.
Last month Mr Al Megrahi made a separate application to the Scottish Justice Secretary to be released on compassionate grounds.
Press release from the Scottish Court Service:
A procedural hearing will take place at 10.00am on Tuesday 18th August 2009 to consider a Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of the appellant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The hearing will be held in Court 3 at the Lawnmarket Building of the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mr. Megrahi will not be present in court.
Press release from the Scottish Government:
In relation to the Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi to be heard in the High Court next Tuesday (August 18), a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"This is entirely a matter for the court, Mr Al Megrahi and his legal team. The Justice Secretary is continuing his considerations of both the applications before him, one under the UK-Libyan Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), and the other on compassionate grounds. He expects to make a decision soon."
Having no criminal proceedings pending is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a PTA application, but an application for compassionate release depends on entirely different criteria.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libya states at Article 3(b) that a condition for transfer is that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State".
Statement by the First Minister:
First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish Government had not put any pressure on the Libyan to drop his second appeal.
Speaking in Edinburgh before Megrahi's application to drop his appeal was announced, he said: "We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals, why on earth should we?
"That's not our position - never has been."
He added: "Nothing that the Scottish Government has done or said suggests pressure on anybody to do anything."
He also said the issue would not be discussed at cabinet on Tuesday, saying it was a judicial matter, not a political one.
"This is a matter the justice secretary must determine and he must do it purely on judicial grounds, which is what he's been doing," he said.
[As reported on the BBC News website.]
Since his diagnosis with inoperable prostate cancer in autumn 2008 Mr Megrahi's health has deteriorated. His condition has taken a significant turn for the worse in recent weeks.
Mr Al Megrahi can confirm that on 12th August he applied to the High Court of Justiciary to abandon his appeal against conviction under section 116 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
As the appeal hearing has commenced, and the court seized of the matter, leave of the court is required before the appeal can be formally abandoned.
Notes for Editors
In May 2009 the Libyan Government applied for Mr Al Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya under and in terms of a prisoner transfer treaty negotiated between the UK and Libya.
Last month Mr Al Megrahi made a separate application to the Scottish Justice Secretary to be released on compassionate grounds.
Press release from the Scottish Court Service:
A procedural hearing will take place at 10.00am on Tuesday 18th August 2009 to consider a Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of the appellant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The hearing will be held in Court 3 at the Lawnmarket Building of the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mr. Megrahi will not be present in court.
Press release from the Scottish Government:
In relation to the Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi to be heard in the High Court next Tuesday (August 18), a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"This is entirely a matter for the court, Mr Al Megrahi and his legal team. The Justice Secretary is continuing his considerations of both the applications before him, one under the UK-Libyan Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), and the other on compassionate grounds. He expects to make a decision soon."
Having no criminal proceedings pending is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a PTA application, but an application for compassionate release depends on entirely different criteria.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libya states at Article 3(b) that a condition for transfer is that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State".
Statement by the First Minister:
First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish Government had not put any pressure on the Libyan to drop his second appeal.
Speaking in Edinburgh before Megrahi's application to drop his appeal was announced, he said: "We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals, why on earth should we?
"That's not our position - never has been."
He added: "Nothing that the Scottish Government has done or said suggests pressure on anybody to do anything."
He also said the issue would not be discussed at cabinet on Tuesday, saying it was a judicial matter, not a political one.
"This is a matter the justice secretary must determine and he must do it purely on judicial grounds, which is what he's been doing," he said.
[As reported on the BBC News website.]
Government and intelligence services influence on media coverage of Lockerbie
[The following are excerpts from an exclusive article just published on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Magnus Linklater, the editor of the Scotsman newspaper at the time of the Lockerbie investigation, has revealed that UK Government and intelligence services influenced coverage of the Lockerbie inquiry to implicate Iran and Syria.
Linklater admitted that both the police and UK Government ministers directed the newspaper to concentrate their coverage on Iranian and Syrian links with the downing of Pan Am 103, the suspects initially favoured by the US and UK administrations.
"This is not just conspiracy theory," Linklater said.
"It is sometimes forgotten just how powerful the evidence was, in the first few months after Lockerbie, that pointed towards the involvement of the Palestinian-Syrian terror group the PFLP-GC, backed by Iran and linked closely to terror groups in Europe. At The Scotsman newspaper, which I edited then, we were strongly briefed by police and ministers to concentrate on this link, with revenge for an American rocket attack on an Iranian airliner as the motive."
This line of inquiry was heavily promoted by the US and UK Governments for two years until the invasion of Kuwait, when the coincidental requirement to use Iranian airpsace to bomb Iraq became a priority. Libya was then identified as the prime suspect.
The involvement of Iran and Syria has been promoted consistently as an alternate explanation for the Lockerbie event, and PFLP-GC group member Mohamed Abu Talb was named by the two accused, Megrahi and Fhimah, in their special defence of incrimination. However, only three of the hundreds of listed defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, and this avenue of inquiry was never explored in a judicial forum. (...)
The lack of evidence in the circumstancial case against Megrahi and Fhimah has been the focus of much of the criticism of the judgement against Megrahi. Material submitted to the trial as semtex explosives evidence had in fact been found to have been manufactured from test explosions.
Linklater does not disclose why the newspaper did not undertake its own investigations. However he did state how former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser expressed concerns to him about whether the CIA could have been involved in planting some of the "evidence".
"I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Let’s go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle," Fraser is reported to have said.
[An article on the issue by Mr Linklater appears in today's edition of The Times. He is currently the newspaper's Scottish Editor.]
Magnus Linklater, the editor of the Scotsman newspaper at the time of the Lockerbie investigation, has revealed that UK Government and intelligence services influenced coverage of the Lockerbie inquiry to implicate Iran and Syria.
Linklater admitted that both the police and UK Government ministers directed the newspaper to concentrate their coverage on Iranian and Syrian links with the downing of Pan Am 103, the suspects initially favoured by the US and UK administrations.
"This is not just conspiracy theory," Linklater said.
"It is sometimes forgotten just how powerful the evidence was, in the first few months after Lockerbie, that pointed towards the involvement of the Palestinian-Syrian terror group the PFLP-GC, backed by Iran and linked closely to terror groups in Europe. At The Scotsman newspaper, which I edited then, we were strongly briefed by police and ministers to concentrate on this link, with revenge for an American rocket attack on an Iranian airliner as the motive."
This line of inquiry was heavily promoted by the US and UK Governments for two years until the invasion of Kuwait, when the coincidental requirement to use Iranian airpsace to bomb Iraq became a priority. Libya was then identified as the prime suspect.
The involvement of Iran and Syria has been promoted consistently as an alternate explanation for the Lockerbie event, and PFLP-GC group member Mohamed Abu Talb was named by the two accused, Megrahi and Fhimah, in their special defence of incrimination. However, only three of the hundreds of listed defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, and this avenue of inquiry was never explored in a judicial forum. (...)
The lack of evidence in the circumstancial case against Megrahi and Fhimah has been the focus of much of the criticism of the judgement against Megrahi. Material submitted to the trial as semtex explosives evidence had in fact been found to have been manufactured from test explosions.
Linklater does not disclose why the newspaper did not undertake its own investigations. However he did state how former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser expressed concerns to him about whether the CIA could have been involved in planting some of the "evidence".
"I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Let’s go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle," Fraser is reported to have said.
[An article on the issue by Mr Linklater appears in today's edition of The Times. He is currently the newspaper's Scottish Editor.]
Is the appeal about to be abandoned?
[Lucy Adams, chief reporter of The Herald is confident that it is. Here is what she says in an article in today's issue of the newspaper:]
Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)
British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.
"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.
"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.
"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."
Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.
The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.
Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.
A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.
[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.
In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.
The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.
'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.
'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']
Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)
British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.
"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.
"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.
"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."
Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.
The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.
Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.
A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.
[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.
In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.
The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.
'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.
'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']
Come clean over this miscarriage of justice
[This is the headline over a leader in today's edition of The Independent. It reads as follows:]
Expectations are growing that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of perpetrating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, will be permitted to return to Libya next week.
Al-Megrahi was diagnosed last year with terminal prostate cancer. The Scottish Government seems to have bowed to pressure from Tripoli for him to be allowed to return home to Libya to die. It is not yet clear whether this release will be authorised on compassionate grounds, or whether it will be a formal prisoner transfer. Either way, allowing al-Megrahi to return home is the right decision.
The response from the relatives of those 270 civilians who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been divided. Dr Jim Swire, the unofficial spokesman of the British families whose relatives died when the plane crashed to the ground over the small Scottish town, yesterday welcomed the prospect of al-Megrahi's release. But the US families of those who died on the flight have expressed their anger about the move, with several accusing the UK and US governments of putting their desire to maintain good relations with Libya ahead of concerns about justice. The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has been pushing hard for al-Megrahi's transfer, is without doubt a repellent figure. For more than four decades he has locked up opponents, murdered dissenters and even sponsored terrorist attacks abroad. There is also something distasteful about the haste with which Western governments have rushed to embrace him since Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in 2003.
Yet the fact is that this particular agreement does not look like a Western attempt to curry favour with the Libyan regime. It is doubtful whether al-Megrahi should have been convicted in the first place. Al-Megrahi is unlikely to be a saint, having worked for the Libyan intelligence services for a number of years. But the evidence linking him to the Lockerbie bombing has looked increasingly weak since his conviction in 2001.
In that trial, held in a specially convened court in the Netherlands, al-Megrahi was positively identified by a witness who, it has been alleged, was offered a $2m reward for his evidence. The Libyan's defence team was also, apparently, denied access to official government papers that were made available to Scottish police. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the Iranian regime sponsored the bombing. One former Iranian agent has come forward to claim that it was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a US warship in July 1988. Taken together, all this provides serious grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice took place.
Some doubt whether we will ever discover conclusive proof of who was responsible for the mass murder in Lockerbie, arguing that too much time has passed. But it would be wrong simply to give up trying to discover what happened. Even if al-Megrahi is permitted to return to Libya to die, his appeal against his conviction should run its course. The evidence against him – and the Libyan state – must be thoroughly tested.
So much about this tragedy remains shrouded in shadow. If it cannot be dragged into the light, we should at least attempt to establish what we do not know. And if the wrong individual was convicted for this terrible crime, the authorities must not be allowed to sweep that uncomfortable fact under the carpet.
Expectations are growing that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of perpetrating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, will be permitted to return to Libya next week.
Al-Megrahi was diagnosed last year with terminal prostate cancer. The Scottish Government seems to have bowed to pressure from Tripoli for him to be allowed to return home to Libya to die. It is not yet clear whether this release will be authorised on compassionate grounds, or whether it will be a formal prisoner transfer. Either way, allowing al-Megrahi to return home is the right decision.
The response from the relatives of those 270 civilians who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been divided. Dr Jim Swire, the unofficial spokesman of the British families whose relatives died when the plane crashed to the ground over the small Scottish town, yesterday welcomed the prospect of al-Megrahi's release. But the US families of those who died on the flight have expressed their anger about the move, with several accusing the UK and US governments of putting their desire to maintain good relations with Libya ahead of concerns about justice. The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has been pushing hard for al-Megrahi's transfer, is without doubt a repellent figure. For more than four decades he has locked up opponents, murdered dissenters and even sponsored terrorist attacks abroad. There is also something distasteful about the haste with which Western governments have rushed to embrace him since Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in 2003.
Yet the fact is that this particular agreement does not look like a Western attempt to curry favour with the Libyan regime. It is doubtful whether al-Megrahi should have been convicted in the first place. Al-Megrahi is unlikely to be a saint, having worked for the Libyan intelligence services for a number of years. But the evidence linking him to the Lockerbie bombing has looked increasingly weak since his conviction in 2001.
In that trial, held in a specially convened court in the Netherlands, al-Megrahi was positively identified by a witness who, it has been alleged, was offered a $2m reward for his evidence. The Libyan's defence team was also, apparently, denied access to official government papers that were made available to Scottish police. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the Iranian regime sponsored the bombing. One former Iranian agent has come forward to claim that it was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a US warship in July 1988. Taken together, all this provides serious grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice took place.
Some doubt whether we will ever discover conclusive proof of who was responsible for the mass murder in Lockerbie, arguing that too much time has passed. But it would be wrong simply to give up trying to discover what happened. Even if al-Megrahi is permitted to return to Libya to die, his appeal against his conviction should run its course. The evidence against him – and the Libyan state – must be thoroughly tested.
So much about this tragedy remains shrouded in shadow. If it cannot be dragged into the light, we should at least attempt to establish what we do not know. And if the wrong individual was convicted for this terrible crime, the authorities must not be allowed to sweep that uncomfortable fact under the carpet.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
I was at Lockerbie: I rejoice that Megrahi is going home
[This is the headline over an article in The Herald by Canon Patrick Keegans who was parish priest in Lockerbie when Pan Am 103 fell on the town and killed eleven of his neighbours and friends in Sherwood Crescent. The following are the last six paragraphs.]
As far as we know, next week Mr Megrahi, to the relief of his wife and family, will be going home. I am rejoicing. That is the only word I can use. I would gladly help him on to the plane. I am glad that compassion still walks hand in hand with justice. As a Scot and as one so closely involved with Lockerbie, I would like to be able to thank the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, for what would be a courageous decision.
It is courageous enough to grant release on compassionate grounds but it will take even more courage to allow the appeal to continue. If the appeal is halted, then justice will be denied on several fronts. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has a right to due legal process, to clear his name. The families of Pan Am 103, if the appeal is halted, will be left with nothing. We will be left in the dark guessing at what would have been the verdict in the appeal.
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
So, I would urge all the families of Pan Am 103 to do two things: first, to respond with compassion to Mr Megrahi and his family; and, secondly, to remember the motto, "Pan Am 103: the truth must be known". Surely there has to be some mechanism by which the material in the appeal can be brought into the public domain. This is not the end of Lockerbie.
On a personal level, I say to my many friends in America who strongly disagree with my views that the compassion and love you have experienced from me and from the people of Lockerbie will always be there for you.
And, again on a personal level, I would say to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he leaves Scottish soil and returns home: "Be at peace now with God and your family."
As far as we know, next week Mr Megrahi, to the relief of his wife and family, will be going home. I am rejoicing. That is the only word I can use. I would gladly help him on to the plane. I am glad that compassion still walks hand in hand with justice. As a Scot and as one so closely involved with Lockerbie, I would like to be able to thank the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, for what would be a courageous decision.
It is courageous enough to grant release on compassionate grounds but it will take even more courage to allow the appeal to continue. If the appeal is halted, then justice will be denied on several fronts. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has a right to due legal process, to clear his name. The families of Pan Am 103, if the appeal is halted, will be left with nothing. We will be left in the dark guessing at what would have been the verdict in the appeal.
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
So, I would urge all the families of Pan Am 103 to do two things: first, to respond with compassion to Mr Megrahi and his family; and, secondly, to remember the motto, "Pan Am 103: the truth must be known". Surely there has to be some mechanism by which the material in the appeal can be brought into the public domain. This is not the end of Lockerbie.
On a personal level, I say to my many friends in America who strongly disagree with my views that the compassion and love you have experienced from me and from the people of Lockerbie will always be there for you.
And, again on a personal level, I would say to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he leaves Scottish soil and returns home: "Be at peace now with God and your family."
Lockerbie bomber set to be freed
[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Times of Malta. The following excerpts are particularly interesting for the comments of the anonymous Libyan official.]
The Scottish government is poised to officially decide to allow the former Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be released from prison and return home on compassionate grounds, according to reports.
An American lawyer who worked on the defence team of Abdel Basset al Megrahi said the Libyan, who is 57 and has terminal prostate cancer, was to be released imminently. (...)
A Libyan official in Tripoli said an agreement for Megrahi's release was "in the last steps" but added that a deal had also been struck that neither side would make any official announcement about Megrahi's release until he was on home soil. (...)
Frank Rubino, an American lawyer who previously worked on Megrahi's legal team, told Britain's Sky television that he had been told by al Megrahi's current defence team the Libyan would be allowed to go home soon.
"I am told that it will be in the very near future," he said. (...)
"The deal is now already in the last steps," the Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, said in Tripoli. "We have an agreement between the two sides not to make any statement until he (al Megrahi) comes home."
[Note by RB: I wonder if this "deal" contains a term to the effect that Mr Megrahi will abandon his appeal? The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally stated that no suggestion was ever made to Megrahi that his prospects of compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, abandonment of his appeal. But could it be that there is an "understanding" that abandonment will take place? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man.]
The Scottish government is poised to officially decide to allow the former Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be released from prison and return home on compassionate grounds, according to reports.
An American lawyer who worked on the defence team of Abdel Basset al Megrahi said the Libyan, who is 57 and has terminal prostate cancer, was to be released imminently. (...)
A Libyan official in Tripoli said an agreement for Megrahi's release was "in the last steps" but added that a deal had also been struck that neither side would make any official announcement about Megrahi's release until he was on home soil. (...)
Frank Rubino, an American lawyer who previously worked on Megrahi's legal team, told Britain's Sky television that he had been told by al Megrahi's current defence team the Libyan would be allowed to go home soon.
"I am told that it will be in the very near future," he said. (...)
"The deal is now already in the last steps," the Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, said in Tripoli. "We have an agreement between the two sides not to make any statement until he (al Megrahi) comes home."
[Note by RB: I wonder if this "deal" contains a term to the effect that Mr Megrahi will abandon his appeal? The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally stated that no suggestion was ever made to Megrahi that his prospects of compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, abandonment of his appeal. But could it be that there is an "understanding" that abandonment will take place? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)