[This is the headline over a report published today in the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reads as follows:]
'Scotland's letter asked for judicial assistance'
The Maltese courts have been asked to gather fresh evidence connected to the 1988 Lockerbie disaster, The Times has learnt.
Hearings took place behind closed doors last week before Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit. Several Maltese witnesses were called to testify.
The court appears to be reviewing evidence connected to travel logistics but no further information could be obtained from Maltese or Scottish sources.
So high was the level of secrecy surrounding the hearings that the court ushers placed brown, government-issue envelopes in front of the peep-holes on the doors of the courtroom, to prevent even passersby from having a look inside.
The development comes as a group of Scottish lobbyists, who reject the conclusion of the investigation and subsequent conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, prepare to present arguments for the case to be re-examined in an inquiry.
They will appear before the Scottish Parliament later this month.
Speaking to The Times, Lockerbie campaigner Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the attack with another 269 victims, said he was unaware that the Scottish authorities had re-opened any investigation into the atrocity but did not find it surprising.
Over recent years, key elements of the prosecution’s case have been called into question, he pointed out, adding it would be entirely plausible for there to be an attempt to shore up questioned evidence in view of a potential fresh probe into the case.
Attempts to contact the Crown Office, Scotland’s prosecution service, were unsuccessful, while locally the Attorney General’s office would not confirm or deny information about the hearings.
Nonetheless, multiple sources have confirmed that the hearings were connected with the Lockerbie case and were instigated by what is known as a Rogatory Letter from Scotland.
In the letter, a foreign judicial or prosecution institution asks a counterpart in another country for judicial assistance, usually the taking of evidence.
Serious doubts have been raised over the years about crucial evidence that underpinned the trial of former Libyan intelligence officer al-Megrahi.
In August of 2009, hopes that his appeal would shed new light on the matter were dashed when he withdrew his right to challenge his 27-year prison sentence, in return for an early release on compassionate grounds – he suffered from terminal cancer and died in May of this year.
Yet, interest in the case has been re-ignited in the wake of the revolution in Libya.
The upheaval brought about access to previously inaccessible documents and the capture and repatriation late last month of the regime’s infamous intelligence chief, Adbullah al-Senussi – the man who would have had most access to Gaddafi’s darkest secrets.
Lockerbie campaigners such as Dr Swire hope that these developments, as well as an impressive body of evidence disputing the official case, will be reconsidered in an inquiry.
Malta stands to clear her name should such an inquiry take place.
The officially accepted version, underpinned by the disputed testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, is premised on the idea that the bomb left Malta – where al-Megrahi worked at the time – and was then transferred onto Pan Am flight 103 through Frankfurt.
Mr Gauci had identified Mr al-Megrahi as the person who in December 1988 made a random purchase of clothing, the fragments of which were found scattered on the disaster site in Lockerbie.
However, evidence that Mr Gauci had been coached, along with a promise of compensation from the CIA, have undermined the credibility of his testimony.
Inconsistencies in his version have also been pointed out along the years.
The Maltese Government has consistently denied that the bomb could have gone through Luqa airport but has, over recent years, been hesitant to support calls for the case to be re-investigated.
Monday, 17 September 2012
Author warning over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report by Marcello Mega in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
One of Scotland's leading authors has warned the Scottish Government not to hold a vote on independence before tackling the "enormous stain" on Scotland's justice system left by the Lockerbie bombing.
James Robertson, acclaimed by First Minister Alex Salmond and many others as Scotland's finest living writer, says he is in broad terms in favour of Scottish independence.
But he adds: "I wouldn't want to go into a referendum with people saying our justice system is not in good health and able to point to Lockerbie to support that view."
He said that because of the uncertainty surrounding the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, "there is an enormous stain on the Scottish justice system and we cannot move forward without erasing it".
Mr Robertson, best known for And The Land Lay Still and The Testament of Gideon Mack, has taken a profound interest in Lockerbie, and it has influenced his latest novel, The Professor of Truth, to be published by Penguin in May 2013.
Last year he delivered a compelling Saltire Society lecture at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, spelling out why he believed Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice.
He also wrote to Mr Salmond to express support for the calls of the UK relatives for a full and independent inquiry, and was disappointed to receive the standard response – that the Scottish Government had no reason to doubt the safety of Megrahi's conviction.
Mr Robertson said: "If the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission saw clear grounds for a second appeal, it's hard for the Government to continue to justify that position.
"We need a full and independent inquiry to resolve it, very obviously for the sakes of the relatives, but also to underline Scotland's integrity if we are to move towards independence." (...)
The Scottish Government insists it lacks the powers to preside over a sufficiently wide-ranging probe, but the Crown Office is continuing to investigate the bombing in the hope of bringing others to justice.
Last night, the Scottish Government said: "It remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity to ask the SCCRC to refer to the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis, which ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
[The Scottish Government’s excuse that it lacks the powers to convene a sufficiently wide-ranging inquiry is becoming boring. It has been comprehensively refuted on many occasions. Here is one example.
The attempt by the Scottish Government to deflect attention away from an inquiry towards a new appeal is disingenuous in the exterme, not to say shameful, given the new hurdles that that government’s own recent legislation has erected to any fresh application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and, assuming a successful SCCRC application, to getting an appeal heard by the High Court of Justiciary.]
One of Scotland's leading authors has warned the Scottish Government not to hold a vote on independence before tackling the "enormous stain" on Scotland's justice system left by the Lockerbie bombing.
James Robertson, acclaimed by First Minister Alex Salmond and many others as Scotland's finest living writer, says he is in broad terms in favour of Scottish independence.
But he adds: "I wouldn't want to go into a referendum with people saying our justice system is not in good health and able to point to Lockerbie to support that view."
He said that because of the uncertainty surrounding the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, "there is an enormous stain on the Scottish justice system and we cannot move forward without erasing it".
Mr Robertson, best known for And The Land Lay Still and The Testament of Gideon Mack, has taken a profound interest in Lockerbie, and it has influenced his latest novel, The Professor of Truth, to be published by Penguin in May 2013.
Last year he delivered a compelling Saltire Society lecture at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, spelling out why he believed Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice.
He also wrote to Mr Salmond to express support for the calls of the UK relatives for a full and independent inquiry, and was disappointed to receive the standard response – that the Scottish Government had no reason to doubt the safety of Megrahi's conviction.
Mr Robertson said: "If the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission saw clear grounds for a second appeal, it's hard for the Government to continue to justify that position.
"We need a full and independent inquiry to resolve it, very obviously for the sakes of the relatives, but also to underline Scotland's integrity if we are to move towards independence." (...)
The Scottish Government insists it lacks the powers to preside over a sufficiently wide-ranging probe, but the Crown Office is continuing to investigate the bombing in the hope of bringing others to justice.
Last night, the Scottish Government said: "It remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity to ask the SCCRC to refer to the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis, which ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
[The Scottish Government’s excuse that it lacks the powers to convene a sufficiently wide-ranging inquiry is becoming boring. It has been comprehensively refuted on many occasions. Here is one example.
The attempt by the Scottish Government to deflect attention away from an inquiry towards a new appeal is disingenuous in the exterme, not to say shameful, given the new hurdles that that government’s own recent legislation has erected to any fresh application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and, assuming a successful SCCRC application, to getting an appeal heard by the High Court of Justiciary.]
Sunday, 16 September 2012
An iron law
[The following are a few sentences from Martin Ivens’s column (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Sunday Times:]
The Hillsborough disaster not only brought out the worst in the police on duty in South Yorkshire that day in April 1989 but also establishment indifference. The families and friends of the 96 people who died have had to wait 23 years for the full truth to be told.
It is now confidently asserted by senior officers that the police have cleaned up their act: Hillsborough could never happen again. Are they right? The initial refusal to hold an inquiry into the killing by armed policemen on the London Underground of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in 2005 shows some habits die hard. (...)
Lord Justice Taylor’s contemporary inquiry condemned a police “blunder of the first magnitude” and officers’ accounts, he said, “were close to deceitful”. Alas, that judgment only scratched the surface. The coroner’s inquest was a joke. Another official inquiry failed to reveal the extent of the cover-up. No criminal prosecutions were mounted despite newspaper revelations of police tampering with the evidence.
It took a bishop, aided by two investigative journalists, to bring the full truth to light last week where government-appointed judges had failed. There appears to be some iron law that it takes two decades for the Crown to redress grievous wrongs committed by its servants. The imprisonment of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six spring to mind.
[As does the imprisonment of Abdelbaset Megrahi.]
The Hillsborough disaster not only brought out the worst in the police on duty in South Yorkshire that day in April 1989 but also establishment indifference. The families and friends of the 96 people who died have had to wait 23 years for the full truth to be told.
It is now confidently asserted by senior officers that the police have cleaned up their act: Hillsborough could never happen again. Are they right? The initial refusal to hold an inquiry into the killing by armed policemen on the London Underground of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in 2005 shows some habits die hard. (...)
Lord Justice Taylor’s contemporary inquiry condemned a police “blunder of the first magnitude” and officers’ accounts, he said, “were close to deceitful”. Alas, that judgment only scratched the surface. The coroner’s inquest was a joke. Another official inquiry failed to reveal the extent of the cover-up. No criminal prosecutions were mounted despite newspaper revelations of police tampering with the evidence.
It took a bishop, aided by two investigative journalists, to bring the full truth to light last week where government-appointed judges had failed. There appears to be some iron law that it takes two decades for the Crown to redress grievous wrongs committed by its servants. The imprisonment of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six spring to mind.
[As does the imprisonment of Abdelbaset Megrahi.]
Friday, 14 September 2012
Libyan newspaper report on Lockerbie compensation trial
[What follows is the text of a report
published on the website of the Libya Herald:]
Libyan
prosecutor says payout to Lockerbie victims “a waste of public money”
The trial of Mohamed Zway, the former
secretary of the General People’s Congress, and Abdul-Ati Al-Obeidi, the
secretary of the People’s Committee for Foreign Liaison and International
Cooperation, opened in Tripoli on Monday.
The charges have surprised many observers as they imply that the two should have been more effective in serving the Qaddafi regime and that the Lockerbie deal should not have happened.
Both men denied the charges in court.
Their lawyer made several requests, the most important of which was a postponement of proceedings in order to give the defence time to examine all the documentary evidence. He also asked to see his clients in private and, pending a postponement, requested the court to release them on bail.
Bail was refused but the court permitted the lawyer to meet the defendents in private. It accepted the request to photocopy some of the evidence but none of the classified documents.
The trial was adjourned to 15 October 2012.
At a press conference on Sunday, former Justice Minister Mohamed Al-Alagy claimed that this trial and and those of other Qaddafi officials were “invalid” because the law was not being properly implemented. He said that the prosecution was sidestepping due process whereby such cases must first go the Indictment Court to be processed.
[When I first met Mr Zway (or Zwai or al-Zwai) in 1994, he was himself Libya’s Minister of Justice. He was one of the army officers who, with Muammar Gaddafi, mounted the 1969 coup against the king, Idris al-Senussi, and the only one still holding high office in the regime. Abdel Ati al-Obeidi was then Libyan ambassador to Morocco but subsequently held many other offices, including ambassador to Italy, Deputy Foreign Minister with responsibility for European relations, head of Gaddafi’s private office and Foreign Minister. In all of these incarnations he remained as chairman of the Libyan Government committee on Lockerbie.]
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Are Lockerbie relatives less deserving than Hillsborough's?
The following was posted yesterday on Facebook by journalist Marcello Mega: “Credit where it's due. For whatever reason, the Government has allowed the exposure of the failures, cowardice, lies and cover-ups around the Hillsborough tragedy. Delighted for the loved ones of the 96 who have campaigned tirelessly for truth and justice. But I know another group of relatives who have campaigned just as hard, and for a few months longer, for the same things. Are the Lockerbie relatives somehow less deserving?”
A comment today on the Facebook page Friends of Justice for Megrahi reads: “Hillsborough: full-scale establishment cover-up in the late 1980s... Hmm.”
On Twitter the Aurora News Agency (@auroranewsfeed) posted: “#Hillsborough, #BloodySunday, #Lockerbie, #MullofKintyre ... official state cover-ups to protect the elite and top careers, that hide the truth”.
And here are just a few sentences from today’s editorial in The Guardian: “Brand a view of events a conspiracy, and you lump it in with moon landing denials and wilder accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. But conspiracies can happen in real life too; on Wednesday we learned about one that took place within the South Yorkshire police in 1989. (...) The wider lesson, however, is surely – and once again – that where blocking out daylight is a possibility, there will be dark motives for seeing that it is done.”
A comment today on the Facebook page Friends of Justice for Megrahi reads: “Hillsborough: full-scale establishment cover-up in the late 1980s... Hmm.”
On Twitter the Aurora News Agency (@auroranewsfeed) posted: “#Hillsborough, #BloodySunday, #Lockerbie, #MullofKintyre ... official state cover-ups to protect the elite and top careers, that hide the truth”.
And here are just a few sentences from today’s editorial in The Guardian: “Brand a view of events a conspiracy, and you lump it in with moon landing denials and wilder accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. But conspiracies can happen in real life too; on Wednesday we learned about one that took place within the South Yorkshire police in 1989. (...) The wider lesson, however, is surely – and once again – that where blocking out daylight is a possibility, there will be dark motives for seeing that it is done.”
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Anniversary of removal of UN sanctions against Libya
Today is the ninth anniversary of the removal by the United Nations Security Council of sanctions against Libya over the Lockerbie affair. Thirteen members voted in favour; France and the United States of America abstained. The report on the BBC News website can be read here. The conditions for removal that the Security Council had imposed when sanctions were imposed included surrender of Megrahi and Fhimah for trial; acceptance by Libya of responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am 103; and payment of compensation to the relatives of the victims. The terms of the Libyan "acceptance of responsibility" can be read here. Posts on this blog relating to the compensation paid by Libya can be read here. Two senior officials of the Gaddafi regime are now on trial in Tripoli for their rôle in negotiating the compensation arrangements.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
US media misconception on Libyan Lockerbie compensation trial
Some of the media in the United States are reporting that the trial of Abdel Ati al-Obeidi and Mohammed Belkasem al-Zwai which recently opened and was adjourned in Tripoli involved an accusation of their "squandering $2.7 billion in public money meant to compensate families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing." Examples, which seem to be based on a report from The Associated Press news agency, can be found here and here and here. This is, of course, wrong. The accusation is not that the officials diverted or embezzled money intended for Lockerbie relatives, but that they were involved in negotiating the payment that was made to the relatives.
The Globe and Mail, a Toronto-based newspaper, bases its coverage on the Reuters news agency report and gets it right.
[This blog post has been reproduced in full on the Libyan Mathaba website.]
The Globe and Mail, a Toronto-based newspaper, bases its coverage on the Reuters news agency report and gets it right.
[This blog post has been reproduced in full on the Libyan Mathaba website.]
Monday, 10 September 2012
Gaddafi-era officials go on trial accused over Lockerbie case
[This is the headline over a report published today by the Reuters news agency. It reads in part:]
Two senior officials under late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi went on trial on Monday accused of wasting public money by facilitating a compensation payment of more than $2 billion to families of those killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
The trial of the two men - former Foreign Minister Abdel-Ati al-Obeidi and former Secretary General of the General People's Congress [RB: and Libyan ambassador in London following restoration of diplomatic relations in 2001] Mohammed Zwai - was swiftly adjourned to give their legal team more time to prepare.
Zwai was the head of the legislature under Gaddafi, who was overthrown after an uprising last year and later killed.
Libya's new rulers, who aim to draw up a democratic constitution, are keen to try Gaddafi's family members and loyalists to show the country's citizens that those who helped Gaddafi stay in power for 42 years are being punished.
But human rights activists fret a weak central government and a relative lack of rule of law mean legal proceedings will not meet international standards.
The two men's appearance in the dock - 14 months after they were arrested - was brief.
"I refute these charges against me," Zwai told the court. Obedi also denied the charges.
The judge, whose name was not given, read out the charges against the duo, saying they were accused of arranging compensation worth $2.7 billion for the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing to try to get them to drop charges against Libya.
The 1988 bombing of a PanAm flight over Lockerbie in Scotland killed 270 people. Libyan Abdel Basset al-Meghrahi, who always denied involvement in downing the jet, was convicted of the bombing. He was released from jail in 2009 amid huge controversy in Britain and died of cancer in May.
Most but not all of the compensation was paid out by Libya on condition that U.N. sanctions against it were cancelled and U.S. trade sanctions against it lifted.
The judge said the two men's action was a crime because "the compensation was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made".
The judge adjourned the men's trial until October 15 after Mustafa Kishlaf, the defense lawyer, said he needed access to certain files and more time to study the case.
On Sunday, war-time interim Justice Minister Mohammed Al-Alagy told reporters that the current trials of Gaddafi-era officials were "invalid" because the prosecutor general's office was not following the necessary legal steps.
Under Libyan law, the Indictment Chamber reviews cases and then refers them to the appropriate court. But Alagy said prosecutors were bypassing this body and demanded they review their procedures and the legality of those held in custody.
Buzeid Dorda, a former intelligence chief and the first former senior official from the Gaddafi era to be put on trial in Libya, said in July he had been denied the right to meet privately with a lawyer and had been subjected to illegal interrogations during his 10 months in detention.
His trial, which began on June 5, has been adjourned several times since for procedural reasons.
[A report on the Libyan Mathaba website contains the following:]
The Tripoli Appeals Court today Monday postponed the trial of senior officials of the derailed Jamahiriya to consider the issue of the defendants Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai, Secretary of the General People's Congress of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, Secretary of External Communications at the Congress until the 15th October at the request of their lawyers.
This was followed by the trial judge citing charges against the two accused, by the public prosecutor for first in 2004 as public officials for harming public money by granting compensation to the families of the victims of the Pan Am flight 103 "Lockerbie" case, of over two thousand seven hundred million dollars (2.7 billion), exceeded the ceiling granted to them in a weak and fake case, since Libya was not responsible.
The second charge concerned treason of the suspects in taking part in negotiations with the lawyers of the families of the victims and agreeing to pay the compensation in exchange for the lifting of the unjust sanctions imposed upon Libya, instead of demanding compensation for those sanctions, which is still outstanding, and to remove Libya from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, while knowing that lawyers are not authorised to negotiate the conditions mentioned above by the US administration, which resulted in harm to the public money as applicable in the articles 2/9 of Law No. 2 of 1979 on economic crimes and articles 183 and 76 of the Penal Code.
Both the accused during the hearing rejected charges brought against them by the trial judge, and asked their defense counsel for for the copies of some papers and documents of the court with a request for the release of those documents, which was met by an objection by the prosecution. The court decided in its second public meeting today to defer consideration of the charges at the request of the defendants to give them more time so as to enable the defense lawers to interview their clients in accordance with legal procedures applicable and to see all documents permitted.
[Further information regarding the Lockerbie role of Obeidi can be found on this blog here; of Zwai here; and of Dorda here.]
Two senior officials under late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi went on trial on Monday accused of wasting public money by facilitating a compensation payment of more than $2 billion to families of those killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
The trial of the two men - former Foreign Minister Abdel-Ati al-Obeidi and former Secretary General of the General People's Congress [RB: and Libyan ambassador in London following restoration of diplomatic relations in 2001] Mohammed Zwai - was swiftly adjourned to give their legal team more time to prepare.
Zwai was the head of the legislature under Gaddafi, who was overthrown after an uprising last year and later killed.
Libya's new rulers, who aim to draw up a democratic constitution, are keen to try Gaddafi's family members and loyalists to show the country's citizens that those who helped Gaddafi stay in power for 42 years are being punished.
But human rights activists fret a weak central government and a relative lack of rule of law mean legal proceedings will not meet international standards.
The two men's appearance in the dock - 14 months after they were arrested - was brief.
"I refute these charges against me," Zwai told the court. Obedi also denied the charges.
The judge, whose name was not given, read out the charges against the duo, saying they were accused of arranging compensation worth $2.7 billion for the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing to try to get them to drop charges against Libya.
The 1988 bombing of a PanAm flight over Lockerbie in Scotland killed 270 people. Libyan Abdel Basset al-Meghrahi, who always denied involvement in downing the jet, was convicted of the bombing. He was released from jail in 2009 amid huge controversy in Britain and died of cancer in May.
Most but not all of the compensation was paid out by Libya on condition that U.N. sanctions against it were cancelled and U.S. trade sanctions against it lifted.
The judge said the two men's action was a crime because "the compensation was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made".
The judge adjourned the men's trial until October 15 after Mustafa Kishlaf, the defense lawyer, said he needed access to certain files and more time to study the case.
On Sunday, war-time interim Justice Minister Mohammed Al-Alagy told reporters that the current trials of Gaddafi-era officials were "invalid" because the prosecutor general's office was not following the necessary legal steps.
Under Libyan law, the Indictment Chamber reviews cases and then refers them to the appropriate court. But Alagy said prosecutors were bypassing this body and demanded they review their procedures and the legality of those held in custody.
Buzeid Dorda, a former intelligence chief and the first former senior official from the Gaddafi era to be put on trial in Libya, said in July he had been denied the right to meet privately with a lawyer and had been subjected to illegal interrogations during his 10 months in detention.
His trial, which began on June 5, has been adjourned several times since for procedural reasons.
[A report on the Libyan Mathaba website contains the following:]
The Tripoli Appeals Court today Monday postponed the trial of senior officials of the derailed Jamahiriya to consider the issue of the defendants Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai, Secretary of the General People's Congress of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, Secretary of External Communications at the Congress until the 15th October at the request of their lawyers.
This was followed by the trial judge citing charges against the two accused, by the public prosecutor for first in 2004 as public officials for harming public money by granting compensation to the families of the victims of the Pan Am flight 103 "Lockerbie" case, of over two thousand seven hundred million dollars (2.7 billion), exceeded the ceiling granted to them in a weak and fake case, since Libya was not responsible.
The second charge concerned treason of the suspects in taking part in negotiations with the lawyers of the families of the victims and agreeing to pay the compensation in exchange for the lifting of the unjust sanctions imposed upon Libya, instead of demanding compensation for those sanctions, which is still outstanding, and to remove Libya from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, while knowing that lawyers are not authorised to negotiate the conditions mentioned above by the US administration, which resulted in harm to the public money as applicable in the articles 2/9 of Law No. 2 of 1979 on economic crimes and articles 183 and 76 of the Penal Code.
Both the accused during the hearing rejected charges brought against them by the trial judge, and asked their defense counsel for for the copies of some papers and documents of the court with a request for the release of those documents, which was met by an objection by the prosecution. The court decided in its second public meeting today to defer consideration of the charges at the request of the defendants to give them more time so as to enable the defense lawers to interview their clients in accordance with legal procedures applicable and to see all documents permitted.
[Further information regarding the Lockerbie role of Obeidi can be found on this blog here; of Zwai here; and of Dorda here.]
Where's Moussa?
[This is the heading on an item posted on Saturday on bensix’s Back Towards the Locus blog. It reads as follows:]
Abdullah al-Senussi, head of intelligence for Gaddafi at the time of the Lockerbie bombing, has been extradited back to Libya from Mauritania. The papers are damned excited by the prospect of his being interviewed in connection with the atrocity. I am, of course, convinced that we’ve seen no good evidence that Al Megrahi or his countrymen were involved but that doesn’t mean that none exists so I hope he’s spoken to. I’ve got to ask, though: where’s Moussa Koussa? You know. Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief. The man that we were told knew the truth of Lockerbie. The man we had within our shores but who then pissed off to Qatar without a charge being filed. It seems probable that some kind of deal was struck – perhaps because of his previous work with intelligence services in capturing and allegedly abusing terror suspects – but why are none of the journalists who claimed he was a latter-day Hess at all intrigued?
[The saga of Moussa Koussa can be followed on this blog here.]
Abdullah al-Senussi, head of intelligence for Gaddafi at the time of the Lockerbie bombing, has been extradited back to Libya from Mauritania. The papers are damned excited by the prospect of his being interviewed in connection with the atrocity. I am, of course, convinced that we’ve seen no good evidence that Al Megrahi or his countrymen were involved but that doesn’t mean that none exists so I hope he’s spoken to. I’ve got to ask, though: where’s Moussa Koussa? You know. Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief. The man that we were told knew the truth of Lockerbie. The man we had within our shores but who then pissed off to Qatar without a charge being filed. It seems probable that some kind of deal was struck – perhaps because of his previous work with intelligence services in capturing and allegedly abusing terror suspects – but why are none of the journalists who claimed he was a latter-day Hess at all intrigued?
[The saga of Moussa Koussa can be followed on this blog here.]
David Miliband on Megrahi
"Al-Megrahi was the man behind the bombing," and "Al-Megrahi's release [in the Lockerbie bombing case] was obviously wrong," says former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband in an interview on Aljazeera English.
Mr Miliband has clearly not read John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury or Dr Morag Kerr’s Lockerbie: Fact and Fiction or watched Aljazeera’s documentary Lockerbie: Case Closed.
Until now David Miliband’s best-known contribution to the Lockerbie case was his signing of a public interest immunity (PII) certificate in the context of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s second appeal in an attempt to prevent disclosure of a document (relating to timers) that had been in the hands of the Crown since 1996 (before the Lockerbie trial) but which was never divulged to the defence (as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission believes it should have been). His conduct in this matter was the subject of an editorial in the Sunday Herald headlined Miliband has made Lockerbie appeal a mockery of justice.
Mr Miliband has clearly not read John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury or Dr Morag Kerr’s Lockerbie: Fact and Fiction or watched Aljazeera’s documentary Lockerbie: Case Closed.
Until now David Miliband’s best-known contribution to the Lockerbie case was his signing of a public interest immunity (PII) certificate in the context of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s second appeal in an attempt to prevent disclosure of a document (relating to timers) that had been in the hands of the Crown since 1996 (before the Lockerbie trial) but which was never divulged to the defence (as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission believes it should have been). His conduct in this matter was the subject of an editorial in the Sunday Herald headlined Miliband has made Lockerbie appeal a mockery of justice.
Saturday, 8 September 2012
A step closer to justice
[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reads in part:]
Abdullah al-Senussi was Muammar Gaddafi’s right-hand man, a spy chief and executioner, but he returned to Libya as a man under arrest this week.
The news of his extradition from Mauritania, where he fled during the conflict that toppled the Gaddafi regime last year, was welcomed by Libyans living in Malta.
Abdalla Kablan believes that putting Mr Senussi on trial for the crimes he committed will provide some form of closure for the families of his victims.
“They can at least feel that their children can rest in peace because the man who inflicted the suffering will face the consequences of his crimes,” Dr Kablan said. (...)
He is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in last year’s civil war and Libya’s decision to try him at home has raised question marks about the country’s ability to deliver a fair trial.
It is a concern expressed by Jim Swire, a British doctor and the father of Flora, one of the victims in the Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing in 1988.
Dr Swire has long maintained that Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing, was innocent. Mr Megrahi died last May.
“Senussi is potentially a key figure who knows a lot and I would have preferred him being tried in front of the ICC because Libyan politicians are now very keen to blame everything on (Muammar) Gaddafi to clear their country’s name,” Dr Swire told The Times.
Mr Senussi had a lot to answer for the crimes he committed, Dr Swire added, but trying him in Libya risked distorting the truth.
The US and British governments believe that Mr Senussi may have orchestrated the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Meanwhile France also wants to question him in connection with the bombing of a UTA passenger plane in 1989.
The architect of the original Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, was cynical over whether Mr Senussi could shed light on the 1988 tragedy.
“His extradition to Libya could help the Lockerbie inquiry, say most of the media today. Probably just as much as (former Foreign Affairs Minister) Moussa Koussa did, I say. And wouldn’t it be nice if there really were a Lockerbie inquiry, and not just a pretend one?
“The trouble is that the investigators’ minds are so closed that they just wouldn’t believe Senussi if he cleared Megrahi’s name.”
Dr Kablan believes this is a chance for Libya to show the world it has changed and criminals will now face justice in a functioning legal system.
Abdullah al-Senussi was Muammar Gaddafi’s right-hand man, a spy chief and executioner, but he returned to Libya as a man under arrest this week.
The news of his extradition from Mauritania, where he fled during the conflict that toppled the Gaddafi regime last year, was welcomed by Libyans living in Malta.
Abdalla Kablan believes that putting Mr Senussi on trial for the crimes he committed will provide some form of closure for the families of his victims.
“They can at least feel that their children can rest in peace because the man who inflicted the suffering will face the consequences of his crimes,” Dr Kablan said. (...)
He is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in last year’s civil war and Libya’s decision to try him at home has raised question marks about the country’s ability to deliver a fair trial.
It is a concern expressed by Jim Swire, a British doctor and the father of Flora, one of the victims in the Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing in 1988.
Dr Swire has long maintained that Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing, was innocent. Mr Megrahi died last May.
“Senussi is potentially a key figure who knows a lot and I would have preferred him being tried in front of the ICC because Libyan politicians are now very keen to blame everything on (Muammar) Gaddafi to clear their country’s name,” Dr Swire told The Times.
Mr Senussi had a lot to answer for the crimes he committed, Dr Swire added, but trying him in Libya risked distorting the truth.
The US and British governments believe that Mr Senussi may have orchestrated the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Meanwhile France also wants to question him in connection with the bombing of a UTA passenger plane in 1989.
The architect of the original Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, was cynical over whether Mr Senussi could shed light on the 1988 tragedy.
“His extradition to Libya could help the Lockerbie inquiry, say most of the media today. Probably just as much as (former Foreign Affairs Minister) Moussa Koussa did, I say. And wouldn’t it be nice if there really were a Lockerbie inquiry, and not just a pretend one?
“The trouble is that the investigators’ minds are so closed that they just wouldn’t believe Senussi if he cleared Megrahi’s name.”
Dr Kablan believes this is a chance for Libya to show the world it has changed and criminals will now face justice in a functioning legal system.
Friday, 7 September 2012
Silence for the dead of Lockerbie
[This is the heading over an article posted recently on the Lockerbie Truth website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph. It reads as follows:]
It is now almost six months since the revelation in John Ashton's book (Megrahi: You are my Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence) that the key evidence on which Baset Al-Megrahi was convicted can no longer be scientifically sustained.
And yet there remains a deafening silence on the part of the judges and Crown Office officials responsible for the investigation and conviction of Al-Megrahi.
The two main planks on which the prosecution's case was founded are:
1. A Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, identified Al-Megrahi as the stranger who had, shortly before the December 1988 bombing, bought clothes in his shop.
2. A fragment of an electronic timer board found at Lockerbie came from a batch of twenty sold to Libya in 1985 by Swiss electronics company MEBO.
1. The Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, during their own three-year investigation of the case, found six grounds for concluding that "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred".
One of the SCCRC's grounds was their discovery of a series of entries in the police diary of chief Dumfries and Galloway police investigator Harry Bell.
Bell recorded from the first days of his investigation that huge offers of reward were available from the United States to principal identification witness Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.
In a letter sent by Dana Biehl of the US Department of Justice, it was explained that Gauci would receive "unlimited monies, with $10,000 available immediately" if Al-Megrahi was convicted.
Bell's police diary, and all knowledge of this offer and negotiations concerning the offer, were concealed from the trial and first appeal. The judges who convicted Al-Megrahi were unaware of these matters when they concluded that Gauci was a totally reliable witness.
Gauci's final and conclusive identification of Al-Megrahi took place during a police identity parade.
Yet Gauci could not fail to identify the man, since he had possessed for several weeks a copy of a magazine with a colour photo of Al-Megrahi, in which the Libyan was described as "the bomber".
2. The fragment of electronic timer board
It was upon this item that the entire case against Al-Megrahi would turn. In the minds of the judges it proved the Libyan connection, since the evidence appeared to show that it came from a batch sold to Libya in 1985.
It had - according to the available evidence - been manufactured by Swiss company Thuring, on behalf of electronics supplier MEBO. It seemed to be a "golden thread" linking Al-Megrahi to the bomb.
In 2008 the Al-Megrahi defence team discovered an extraordinary anomaly, one which had escaped the attention of the prosecution team, the Scottish Crown Office, and the Scottish police. It concerned the silver-like protective coating on the fragment, which covered the copper circuitry in order to prevent oxidisation.
A hand-written note by the government's chief forensic scientist Alan Feraday had recorded the protective coating as "100% tin".
Feraday's records also showed that he was aware of the difference between the Lockerbie fragment and the coating upon a control sample supplied to the police as part of their investigation. The control sample - manufactured by Swiss company Thuring - contained a 70/30% alloy of tin and lead.
The prosecution and police mistake was to speculate that the heat of the Lockerbie explosion had entirely evaporated the lead content. But no follow-up investigations in order to test this theory were carried out.
During the trial, the judges and defence team were unaware of the anomaly and accepted the provenance of the fragment from the metallurgical point of view.
When in 2008 the defence team checked with Thuring, it emerged that all timer boards made by that company throughout the 1980's were coated with an alloy mixture of 70% tin and 30% lead. Indeed, Thuring had always made, and continue to make, boards with a 70/30% alloy.
In 2008 the Thuring production manager swore an affidavit to this effect and was scheduled to repeat his evidence in Al-Megrahi's second appeal, abandoned in 2009.
Having discovered the anomaly, the defence team commissioned two highly experienced and reputable scientists to investigate the matter. In a series of experiments carried out at separate laboratories, the scientists tested the theory of evaporation of lead content by high temperatures.
In all cases, the lead did not evaporate. Thus they established beyond all reasonable doubt that the fragment found at Lockerbie could not have come from any of the timers sold to Libya by MEBO.
This evidence too was scheduled to be presented in Al-Megrahi's second appeal, abandoned in 2009.
The protocols and data resulting from the defence-commissioned experiments would no doubt be freely available, should the prosecuting authorities request to examine them.
Do the responsible officers not have a duty of conscience to at least enquire into this new evidence?
And might we ask of Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland how he would feel if it was his own daughter who had been murdered by unknown persons, while a man remains falsely convicted for that offence?
Will not his silence, and that of his officials and the Scottish judiciary, should it continue, be interpreted by historians as the greatest of betrayals of Scottish society and the law?
It is now almost six months since the revelation in John Ashton's book (Megrahi: You are my Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence) that the key evidence on which Baset Al-Megrahi was convicted can no longer be scientifically sustained.
And yet there remains a deafening silence on the part of the judges and Crown Office officials responsible for the investigation and conviction of Al-Megrahi.
The two main planks on which the prosecution's case was founded are:
1. A Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, identified Al-Megrahi as the stranger who had, shortly before the December 1988 bombing, bought clothes in his shop.
2. A fragment of an electronic timer board found at Lockerbie came from a batch of twenty sold to Libya in 1985 by Swiss electronics company MEBO.
1. The Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, during their own three-year investigation of the case, found six grounds for concluding that "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred".
One of the SCCRC's grounds was their discovery of a series of entries in the police diary of chief Dumfries and Galloway police investigator Harry Bell.
Bell recorded from the first days of his investigation that huge offers of reward were available from the United States to principal identification witness Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.
In a letter sent by Dana Biehl of the US Department of Justice, it was explained that Gauci would receive "unlimited monies, with $10,000 available immediately" if Al-Megrahi was convicted.
Bell's police diary, and all knowledge of this offer and negotiations concerning the offer, were concealed from the trial and first appeal. The judges who convicted Al-Megrahi were unaware of these matters when they concluded that Gauci was a totally reliable witness.
Gauci's final and conclusive identification of Al-Megrahi took place during a police identity parade.
Yet Gauci could not fail to identify the man, since he had possessed for several weeks a copy of a magazine with a colour photo of Al-Megrahi, in which the Libyan was described as "the bomber".
2. The fragment of electronic timer board
It was upon this item that the entire case against Al-Megrahi would turn. In the minds of the judges it proved the Libyan connection, since the evidence appeared to show that it came from a batch sold to Libya in 1985.
It had - according to the available evidence - been manufactured by Swiss company Thuring, on behalf of electronics supplier MEBO. It seemed to be a "golden thread" linking Al-Megrahi to the bomb.
In 2008 the Al-Megrahi defence team discovered an extraordinary anomaly, one which had escaped the attention of the prosecution team, the Scottish Crown Office, and the Scottish police. It concerned the silver-like protective coating on the fragment, which covered the copper circuitry in order to prevent oxidisation.
A hand-written note by the government's chief forensic scientist Alan Feraday had recorded the protective coating as "100% tin".
Feraday's records also showed that he was aware of the difference between the Lockerbie fragment and the coating upon a control sample supplied to the police as part of their investigation. The control sample - manufactured by Swiss company Thuring - contained a 70/30% alloy of tin and lead.
The prosecution and police mistake was to speculate that the heat of the Lockerbie explosion had entirely evaporated the lead content. But no follow-up investigations in order to test this theory were carried out.
During the trial, the judges and defence team were unaware of the anomaly and accepted the provenance of the fragment from the metallurgical point of view.
When in 2008 the defence team checked with Thuring, it emerged that all timer boards made by that company throughout the 1980's were coated with an alloy mixture of 70% tin and 30% lead. Indeed, Thuring had always made, and continue to make, boards with a 70/30% alloy.
In 2008 the Thuring production manager swore an affidavit to this effect and was scheduled to repeat his evidence in Al-Megrahi's second appeal, abandoned in 2009.
Having discovered the anomaly, the defence team commissioned two highly experienced and reputable scientists to investigate the matter. In a series of experiments carried out at separate laboratories, the scientists tested the theory of evaporation of lead content by high temperatures.
In all cases, the lead did not evaporate. Thus they established beyond all reasonable doubt that the fragment found at Lockerbie could not have come from any of the timers sold to Libya by MEBO.
This evidence too was scheduled to be presented in Al-Megrahi's second appeal, abandoned in 2009.
The protocols and data resulting from the defence-commissioned experiments would no doubt be freely available, should the prosecuting authorities request to examine them.
Do the responsible officers not have a duty of conscience to at least enquire into this new evidence?
And might we ask of Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland how he would feel if it was his own daughter who had been murdered by unknown persons, while a man remains falsely convicted for that offence?
Will not his silence, and that of his officials and the Scottish judiciary, should it continue, be interpreted by historians as the greatest of betrayals of Scottish society and the law?
Thursday, 6 September 2012
Senussi extradition could help Lockerbie inquiry
[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Herald. The following is an excerpt:]
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland travelled to Libya in April to meet Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib and pave the way for the new Lockerbie inquiry, announced last autumn.
A statement from the Crown Office said: "We note the position in relation to the extradition of Senussi to Libya and we will continue to liaise with our colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as the Libyan authorities, to pursue all available lines of inquiry."
It would not be drawn on whether active steps were being made to interview Senussi, who has been accused of crimes against humanity – including murder and persecution – by the International Criminal Court.
[The Scotsman’s report contains the following:]
(...) his trial may also make some feel uncomfortable – he may reveal the details of the rapprochement brokered during the famous “meeting in the desert” between Gaddafi and former prime minister Tony Blair in 2004, which saw international sanctions lifted.
Senussi will also have the answers to what part Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who died in Tripoli earlier this year, played in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing – and will be able to answer questions about whether the deal to send Megrahi back to Libya was linked to concessions for British oil companies.
[The following are excerpts from the report in The Times (behind the paywall):]
Western diplomats said the Libyan Government would also face inquiries from Britain, the US and France over al-Senussi’s knowledge of international crimes linked to the Gaddafi regime.
These include the bombing of Pan Am Flight 174 over Lockerbie, the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and the bombing of a French airliner over Niger in 1989 — for which al-Senussi was convicted in absentia by a French court. (...)
A British Foreign Office spokesman said last night: “There are a number of open UK police investigations in relation to the activities of the Gaddafi regime. The police will follow the evidence wherever it leads and we will continue to provide them what support we can. The Libyan authorities are in no doubt of the importance the UK attaches to seeing progress made on these investigations.”
[The report in The Independent contains the following:]
The French government has already sentenced Mr Senussi to life imprisonment after a case heard in absentia, involving the shooting down of a UTA airliner over Niger in 1989 in which 170 people were killed. It has also been claimed that he was involved in the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.
However, Libya became a staunch ally of the West against Islamists following the rapprochement with Gaddafi led by the US and UK, and Mr Senussi will have details of co-operation which could cause embarrassment on both sides of the Atlantic if aired publicly.
Abdul Hakim Belhaj, a former head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is currently suing the British Government and senior officials in this country over his rendition to Libya.
Earlier this year, US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who led a delegation to the region, said Washington had a "particular interest" in seeing Mr Senussi arrested "because of his role with the Lockerbie bombing".
There are, however, doubts over Libyan culpability in the attack, with strong feeling among many close to the case that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the bombing.
[A report in the Daily Telegraph can be read here.]
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland travelled to Libya in April to meet Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib and pave the way for the new Lockerbie inquiry, announced last autumn.
A statement from the Crown Office said: "We note the position in relation to the extradition of Senussi to Libya and we will continue to liaise with our colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as the Libyan authorities, to pursue all available lines of inquiry."
It would not be drawn on whether active steps were being made to interview Senussi, who has been accused of crimes against humanity – including murder and persecution – by the International Criminal Court.
[The Scotsman’s report contains the following:]
(...) his trial may also make some feel uncomfortable – he may reveal the details of the rapprochement brokered during the famous “meeting in the desert” between Gaddafi and former prime minister Tony Blair in 2004, which saw international sanctions lifted.
Senussi will also have the answers to what part Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who died in Tripoli earlier this year, played in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing – and will be able to answer questions about whether the deal to send Megrahi back to Libya was linked to concessions for British oil companies.
[The following are excerpts from the report in The Times (behind the paywall):]
Western diplomats said the Libyan Government would also face inquiries from Britain, the US and France over al-Senussi’s knowledge of international crimes linked to the Gaddafi regime.
These include the bombing of Pan Am Flight 174 over Lockerbie, the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and the bombing of a French airliner over Niger in 1989 — for which al-Senussi was convicted in absentia by a French court. (...)
A British Foreign Office spokesman said last night: “There are a number of open UK police investigations in relation to the activities of the Gaddafi regime. The police will follow the evidence wherever it leads and we will continue to provide them what support we can. The Libyan authorities are in no doubt of the importance the UK attaches to seeing progress made on these investigations.”
[The report in The Independent contains the following:]
The French government has already sentenced Mr Senussi to life imprisonment after a case heard in absentia, involving the shooting down of a UTA airliner over Niger in 1989 in which 170 people were killed. It has also been claimed that he was involved in the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.
However, Libya became a staunch ally of the West against Islamists following the rapprochement with Gaddafi led by the US and UK, and Mr Senussi will have details of co-operation which could cause embarrassment on both sides of the Atlantic if aired publicly.
Abdul Hakim Belhaj, a former head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is currently suing the British Government and senior officials in this country over his rendition to Libya.
Earlier this year, US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who led a delegation to the region, said Washington had a "particular interest" in seeing Mr Senussi arrested "because of his role with the Lockerbie bombing".
There are, however, doubts over Libyan culpability in the attack, with strong feeling among many close to the case that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the bombing.
[A report in the Daily Telegraph can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)