The Scottish Government and a Megrahi inquiry

What follows is an item first posted on this blog on this date in 2011:

Megrahi inquiry delay sparks anger

[This is the headline over an article by Bob Smyth in today's edition of The Sunday Post. It does not appear on the newspaper's vestigial website. The article reads as follows:]

The Scottish Government has been criticised over its dealings with an influential parliamentary committee.

Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee finally received answers over ministers' refusal to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie case on Friday -- a month after the deadline.

The response came after The Sunday Post quizzed the Scottish Government on the delay.

Before the late reply arrived, the campaigners behind the petition slammed the hold-up and a member of the committee also hit out.

Justice for Megrahi, who believe bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, have demanded the inquiry.

The campaigners met the committee on November 9 to highlight their petition calling for a probe into the bombing and the conviction of Megrahi. The group includes Lockerbie relatives, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, TV journalist Kate Adie, retired politician Tam Dalyell and Professor Robert Black, who was central to the setting up of the Lockerbie trial.

The Scottish Government has always refused an inquiry, saying it's beyond their jurisdiction.

Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester said, "We want them to have an inquiry about the matters that come under Scotiish jurisdiction, such as the police investigation, Megrahi's trial and appeal and his release. (...)

"They were supposed to respond to the committee by December 10 but didn't."

Committee member Cathie Craigie [MSP, Labour] said, "It's very concerning if the Scottish Government is not engaging with the proper process and responding within the timescale. They have an army of civil servants."

The Scottish Government reply said, "The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system -- inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. 

"The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry.

"However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government."

Legal expert Professor Robert Black said, "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has no jurisdiction and powers outwith Scotland. Yet it managed to conduct an investigation into the Megrahi conviction that enabled it to reach the conclusion that the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 

"There is no conceivable reason why a Scottish inquiry under the Inquiries Act should have less success in obtaining and uncovering evidence."

[Later today I shall be starting my trek from the Roggeveld back to Edinburgh. It is therefore unlikely that there will be further posts on this blog before 13 January.

Here are a few lines from one of the poems in Michael Cole’s Ghaap: Sonnets from the Northern Cape:

The place was empty, void of anything,

A barren wilderness of thorn and thirst,

Of night frost, and armoured sun spearing

Hard rays all day; the diamonds in the worst

Terrain they could imagine, but their call

Undeniable. No sustenance

But for the game, until they'd shot it all.

Ox and horse brought food and elegance,

Machinery and cables, makeshift sheds,

Rhodes, apartheid, flu and iron beds.]

More than half want Lockerbie probe

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Southend Standard, based on material issued by The Press Association.  It reads as follows:]

More than half of Scots think there should be a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, according to a new poll.

The survey, which was carried out by Angus Reid Public Opinion for the Scottish Sunday Express newspaper, also revealed that 32% of the 500 respondents believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was guilty of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, while 35% said they did not and 33% were unsure.

The majority of those polled said they agreed with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to free Megrahi in 2009 on compassionate grounds, when doctors advised that he had around three months to live after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer. A quarter strongly agreed with the decision - even though he is still alive two years on - and 26% moderately agreed.

The newspaper's poll found that 52% of Scots agreed there should be an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, which killed 270 people, while 34% disagreed and 14% were not sure.

Megrahi, who was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing, was tracked down to his villa in the Libyan capital of Tripoli at the weekend, where he is apparently comatose and near death.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, has always maintained that Megrahi is innocent. He told the Sunday Express: "This is hugely encouraging. We have the right to know who really murdered our loved one.

"It is terrific that the message is getting out there. The public inquiry is not for the relatives of those that died, it is for the people of Scotland. They deserve and badly need to be told what has been going on."

[This story does not appear to feature on the website of the Scottish Sunday Express. However, I have seen the full tabulated responses to all three questions. On the independent inquiry question, those supporting an inquiry greatly outnumber those opposed in all age groups, all social classes and both genders. On the 'Was he guilty?' question, the highest proportion of 'No' responses came from those aged 55+ and the ABC1 social group.

The story has now been posted on the Scottish Sunday Express website and can be read here. The following are excerpts:]

However, it is the widespread backing for a Public Inquiry – the first time that public opinion has ever been tested on this issue – that is likely to have the most political impact.

The Holyrood Justice Committee is due to consider a petition calling for a probe, backed by figures such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former MP Tam Dalyell and Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

Dr [Jim] Swire, one of the architects of the petition, said: “This is hugely interesting, valuable and encouraging. It is terrific that the message is getting out there.

“The Public Inquiry is not for the relatives of those that died, it is for the people of Scotland. They deserve and badly need to be told what has been going on.

“Namely, that their justice system has been made use of by another country – mostly America, although Westminster was conniving away on Washington’s behalf – for politically desired ends, turning the spotlight away from Iran and Syria ahead of the Gulf War.”

Professor Robert Black, who designed the unique Lockerbie trial under Scots Law at Camp Zeist in Holland and has protested Megrahi’s innocence ever since, said he was “delighted” by the support for an inquiry.

“This is the first such poll that I am aware of,” he said. “It certainly helps our campaign as there must come a point where the disquiet about the conviction becomes so great that they can’t go on stonewalling.”

The Justice For Megrahi campaign secretary Robert Forrester said the poll could help sway the Justice Committee – which is chaired by MSP Christine Grahame, a long-standing supporter of Megrahi’s innocence.

He said: “We are up against the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate and it takes such a long time to go even a short distance, so it is very refreshing to see the Scottish public is on our side.”

[Today's edition of the Mail on Sunday contains a long article headlined Secret files: Labour lied over Gaddafi... who warned of a holy war if Megrahi died in Scotland, based on documents found in the British ambassador's residence in Tripoli.  These underline something that the WikiLeaks cables had already demonstrated: that the Libyan regime exerted strong pressure on the UK Government to facilitate the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi.  There is, as yet, no evidence from Tripoli showing such pressure being applied to the Scottish Government.

Meanwhile, in today's edition of The Observer, columnist Kevin McKenna writes:]

Their [the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament] support for Kenny MacAskill's sinister proposals for a single national police force is just plain immoral for a party that is supposed to be left wing and healthily suspicious of what is effectively a standing army with truncheons. The same could be said for their obtuse and reactionary opposition to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

[The opening paragraph of a report (behind the paywall) in today's edition of The Sunday Times headlined Gaddafi threatened ‘holy war’ unless Lockerbie bomber was released reads as follows:] 

The British government released Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber not on compassionate grounds as they claimed but because Colonel Gaddafi threatened to unleash a ‘holy war’ if he died in prison.

[This is, of course, a perversion of the truth that it is quite disgraceful to find in a supposedly reputable newspaper.  Megrahi was released by a minister of the Scottish Government. It has, however, long been well known that the UK Government was keen for Megrahi to be repatriated and that, had they been the ones to have the power to do so, he would have been returned to Tripoli long before he in fact was.

A report just published on The Guardian website, headlined Darling denies Lockerbie bomber was freed due to pressure from Gaddafi, contains the following:]

[Former Labour cabinet minister Alistair] Darling denied a deal was done to secure Megrahi's release. "There is no doubt that from our point of view we wanted to bring Gaddafi in from the cold because at the time we thought that was possible, and there is no doubt that Gaddafi wanted al-Megrahi out," he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

"However, all this hangs on the willingness of the British Labour government doing a deal with the Scottish nationalist government, and anyone who knows anything about Scottish politics knows there is such a visceral dislike between the two the idea there was some kind of collaboration between the two just seems to be nonsense."

British MPs, activist say Malta should defend itself on Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

Two former British Labour and Conservative MPs have joined American political activist Noam Chomsky in calling on the Maltese government to defend the country's reputation.

Prof Chomsky and the British MPs are signatories to a letter sent to the government calling on Malta to support a demand for an inquiry by the UN General Assembly into the 1988 Pan Am bombing that claimed 270 lives.

The letter sent by the 'Justice for Megrahi' campaign, which includes relatives of the victims in the bombing, is also signed by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for 43 years, and Teddy Taylor, MP for the Conservatives for 36 years, said they had doubts about the original verdict. They said if the Maltese government supported a UN inquiry, then it could clear the country's name and help the families of the victims establish the truth.

Prof Chomsky described the events surrounding the case of the convicted bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi as "a remarkable illustration of the conformism and obedience of intellectual opinion in the West".

He told The Sunday Times: "I think the trial was very seriously flawed, including crucially the alleged role of Malta. There is every reason to call for a very serious independent inquiry." (...)

The original conviction of Mr Al Megrahi had relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who said the Libyan had bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

But it has since emerged that Al Megrahi's defence team had argued in the recent appeal that the Maltese witness was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.

The former British Conservative MP referred to Mr Gauci's testimony when speaking to The Sunday Times. He said if "our friends in Malta" were willing to pursue the issue at the UN and seek the truth that may have been flawed by "a statement of a resident of Malta who appears to have benefited enormously from his identification and who then moved to Australia", then the government would help relatives of the victims, and itself.

Mr Taylor recalled Malta's role in the Second World War, saying "British people my age have a very special regard for Malta as a centre of brave and trustworthy people who were willing to stand firm against fascism".

Mr Dalyell said: "I have believed since 1991 that the Crown Office in Edinburgh should have respected the stated view of the Maltese government, Air Malta, Luqa airport authorities and the Malta police that no unaccounted for luggage, let alone a bomb, was placed on the flight."

Although Malta has always denied any involvement in the act, it remains implicated by the government's refusal to take up the cause.

When Mr Gauci said in the original trial that he believed Mr Al Megrahi purchased clothes from his shop, it provided the prosecution with grounds to argue that the bomb had left from Malta and then transferred to the fateful flight.

Malta had provided ample evidence to support its contention that there was no unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. But Malta's defence was trumped by Mr Gauci's testimony.

Bàs Megrahi: ceistean [Death of Megrahi: issues]

[This is the headline over an article in Gaelic by Seonaidh Caimbeul in yesterday’s edition of The Scotsman.  Regrettably, Scots Gaelic is not one of the language options offered by Google Translate.   Babylon claims to do so, but I have been unable to get the download to work. The article reads as follows:]

Tha bàs Abdelbasat Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, 60, Di-Dòmhnaich sa chaidh air ceist na coireachd air son là dubh Logarbaidh [Lockerbie] 21.12.88 a thogail ás ùr agus iomagain ann gu bheil an gnothach a’ tarraing aire nàireil do dh’Alba air adhbharan eadar-dhealaichte.

Air an dàrna làimh tha feadhainn den bheachd gur e uilebheist a bh’ anns an Libianach a mharbh 270 le boma a phlantaig e air bòrd PanAm 103 a thuit air Logarbaidh. Tha iad ag ràdh gur e mearachd a rinn Ministear a’ Cheartais, Coinneach MacAsgaill [Kenny MacAskill], le bhith a’ leigeil le al-Megrahi a dhol dhachaigh gu Tripoli seach bàsachadh sa phrìosan. Thuirt ceannard nan Làbarach, Johann NicLadhmainn [Johann Lamont], ’s i a’ bruidhinn “ás leth muinntir na h-Alba”, nach robh an co-dhùnadh sin ach “a’ dèanamh tàir air na h-ìobairtich agus an teaghlaichean”.

Air an làimh eile tha cuid de luchd-dàimh nam marbh agus sàr-eòlaich lagh cinnteach nach robh al-Megrahi neo Libia an sàs sa mhort ’s gu bheil fianais nas earbsaich a’ comharrachadh Iran. Tha litir fhosgailte le taic bho dhaoine cliùiteach ann am beatha phoblach a’ fàgail air Riaghaltas na h-Alba gun deach ceuman a ghabhail “a tha a’ cur bacadh air adhartas sam bith a dh’ionnsaigh togail a’ cheò a tha ’na laighe air na thachair”.

Tha am bàrd Aonghas Dubh MacNeacail a’ toirt taic ris an iomairt air son sgrùdadh poblach. Thuirt e: “Chan eil mi a’ tuigsinn car son a tha daoine a’ dùnadh an sùilean ri fianais a tha a’ cur teagamh anns a’ bhinn a chaidh a chur air Mgr Megrahi. Bha na breitheamhan eisimeileach air an fhianais agus an fhiosrachadh a bha romhpa sa chùirt agus tha sinn uile an urra ris na leugh sinn mun chùis lagh. Ge-tà, tha fianais ùr air nochdadh bhon uair sin agus tha sàr-eòlaich air ceistean a thogail air a’ bhuaidh a bh’ aig riaghaltasan Ameireaga ’s Breatainn air cùis lagha Albannach.”

Se an t-Oll. Raibeart MacilleDhuibh [Robert Black] a chuir cùis-lagha Mhegrahi air bhonn fo lagh na h-Alba aig cùirt shònraichte anns na Dùthchannan Ìsle. Thuirt e: “Tha mi toilichte faicinn gu bheil na meadhanan naidheachd an-seo agus anns na Stàitean Aonaichte ag aithneachadh a-nis gu bheil fìor dhuilgheadasan ann an dìteadh Megrahi. Se tha dhìth a-nis gun aithnich Riaghaltas na h-Alba cho riatanach ’s a tha sgrùdadh poblach neo-eisimeileach.”

Ghabhadh tagradh a chur a-steach an aghaidh na binne le teaghlach al-Megrahi, ged a tha ughdarrasan Albannach agus Ameireaganach fhathast a’ rannsachadh ceanglan Libianach ri uabhas Logarbaidh.


[Here is the full text of the quotation that I supplied to the journalist for use in the article:]


I am very pleased at the coverage that the open letter has had, both in the UK and around the world.  In particular it is gratifying to see influential mainstream news media in the United States for the first time recognising that there are real problems with the Megrahi conviction -- see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2012/05/nyt-admits-lockerbie-case-flaws.html and  http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2012/05/cnn-did-someone-else-bomb-pan-am-103.html. What we need now is recognition from the Scottish Government that there is here a matter of real public concern and that an independent inquiry into the investigation, prosecution and conviction is necessary. People like Kate Adie, Benedict Birnberg, Ian Hislop, A L Kennedy, Len Murray, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, John Pilger, Tessa Ransford, James Robertson, Kenneth Roy, Desmond Tutu and Terry Waite cannot simply be contemptuously dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" -- the lazy slur used by people who refuse to address the manifest flaws in the Lockerbie prosecution.

Hell hath no fury like a tycoon scorned

[What follows is an excerpt from the coverage (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times of the revelation that First Minister Alex Salmond solicited a statement of support from Donald Trump after the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi:]

Alex Salmond has been accused of “acting like a dictator” after it emerged that he rang Donald Trump to “demand” he endorse the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

The First Minister then had his aides concoct a statement in which the US tycoon praised the SNP administration’s decision to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds as a gesture that “might break the cycle of violence around the world”.

In the statement, apparently drafted by Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s special adviser, it was suggested that Mr Trump should sympathise with Americans who lost family in the 1988 atrocity but conclude that al-Megrahi’s release “won’t stop my love affair with Scotland and the Scots. “No one should ever demean that country. Too many Scottish soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the head of the FBI to lecture Scots on fighting terrorism”, he was urged to say.

Mr Trump refused to endorse the statement. Last night his son, Donald Jnr, said it was inconceivable that the businessman could ever have signed. “We are New Yorkers, we have experienced terrorism at an extraordinary level,” said Mr Trump Jr, who works alongside his father.

“I think there was an element that we thought it must be a joke initially, had it not been so atrocious. No one in their right mind could have possibly asked someone to come out in favour of this decision.”

According to the Trump Organisation, the stand-off had profound consequences for the tycoon’s £750 million golf resort, planned for the Aberdeenshire coast.

After years of cosying up to Mr Trump, the First Minister suddenly turned his back on his scheme, encouraging the siting of 11 giant offshore wind turbines within a mile of the links, as part of the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre.

Mr Trump’s team accuses Mr Salmond of subsequently lobbying other organisations, including the Ministry of Defence and the RSPB, to withdraw their objections to the wind farm.

George Sorial, the executive vice-president of the Trump Organisation, said: “It is not acceptable for the First Minister to be running around acting like a dictator. This is not Cuba, not Iraq under Saddam Hussain.”

Both Mr Sorial and Mr Trump Jr were privy to the conference call in August 2009 when Mr Salmond rang to ask for assistance. The terrorist’s release had provoked a wave of anger in America, and Mr Sorial said he could recall the First Minister’s words.

“He was calling to ask us, but he was really making a demand,” said Mr Sorial. “(Salmond) said: ‘This is one of the low points in my political career, seeing this guy arrive in Tripoli to waving saltires. This is such an embarrassment for me. I need your help, I need your support. I am going to send you a statement and we expect that you will release it’.”

Mr Trump Jr added: “It was almost an expected quid pro quo, because he had supported our development, that we would support every aspect of his policies, even policies that no sane person could support, specifically the release of Megrahi. The First Minister was upset that we couldn’t do it.” (...)

Last night, Mr Trump used Twitter to insist that his refusal to support the release of al-Megrahi had prompted Mr Salmond to withdrawn his support for the golf resort.

“If Alex Salmond had not stupidly released terrorist al-Megrahi (PanAm flight 103) to his friends, there would be no Trump wind farm dispute,” he said.

[Other media reports are to be found today in The Scotsman here; in The Herald here; in the Daily Record here; in the Daily Express here; and in the Daily Telegraph here. This last contains the following reaction from the Scottish Government:]

A spokesman for Mr Salmond claimed the approach broke no rules and the Scottish Government was “perfectly entitled to hope for support from international stakeholders”.

He added: "Indeed, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, among many others around the world, supported this decision."

Christopher Brookmyre joins Justice for Megrahi campaign

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

The celebrated Scots author Christopher Brookmyre and the Artistic Director of Edinburgh Grand Opera, Christina Dunwoodie have both joined the Justice for Megrahi campaign group.

They join signatories to a petition for calling for an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 affair including John Pilger, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell and Jock Thompson QC.

The petition will be heard again by the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee tomorrow.

"It is extremely important that this matter remains a ‘live’ issue within the Scottish Parliament so that it cannot be arbitrarily closed down by the very people we believe might have culpability in the matter," the committee said in a statement.

"It is vital that clear and unambiguous answers are forthcoming from the appropriate authorities. In light of the integral relationship between PE1370 and the allegations we have lodged with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, we would request that the Justice Committee maintain the status of PE1370 as ‘open’ whilst decisions are made in respect of these allegations.

"It is obvious that we have raised many important questions that the ongoing Crown Office/police enquiry has failed to answer."

Malta asked to support demands for UN inquiry on Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

Maltese witnesses paid over $3 million - defence claims
The government has been asked to support an international attempt to request the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.

The letter is signed by 20 people including the families of the victims, authors, journalists, professors, politicians and parliamentarians, as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - well-known for defending human rights worldwide. The government said it was considering the call for the inquiry.

The letter asks the UN to help remove "many of the deep misgivings which persist in lingering over this (Lockerbie) tragedy". Such an effort could also eliminate the Malta connection with the terrorist act.

Malta was brought into the case because the prosecution argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport to a feeder flight [Pan Am 103A] for Pan Am flight [103] which departed from London. (...)

The second appeal of the convicted bomber, Mr Al-Megrahi, was expected to produce evidence that had not been made available at the trial and remove doubts that continue to linger on the verdict.

But Mr Al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill, was released from Scottish prison in August on compassionate grounds and abandoned his appeal to return to Libya.

The convicted bomber has always maintained his innocence. In a bid to clear his name before he succumbs to cancer, he began publishing documents that were to have featured in the appeal on the website www.megrahimystory.net.

The papers, he insists, provided enough grounds to have secured his release on appeal, if it had not been dropped. The first 300-odd pages of documents refer to Malta and the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.

Mr Gauci had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes from his shop in Sliema that were later found wrapped around the bomb. But, according to the documents, Mr Gauci's testimony was replete with inconsistencies.

Moreover, the published documents state that Mr Gauci was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother, Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation.

Sky News reported last Friday that Tony Gauci was now living in luxury in Australia. The payment had not been disclosed at the original trial, nor had the documents related to it.

Excerpts from interviews conducted for the case that were revealed in the published documents quote former Police Commissioner George Grech and the former Head of the Security Services Godfrey Scicluna saying they were of the opinion that Tony Gauci "had become confused about things".

Yet, statements by representatives of the highest government authorities in Malta at the time were overruled in favour of Tony Gauci's testimony.

Another witness, David Wright, a regular visitor to Malta and friend of Tony Gauci, also filed a statement with the police in the UK saying that he was at the shop when the clothes were bought and that Mr Al-Megrahi was not the buyer. Yet, he was never called to testify.

Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg yesterday told The Sunday Times: "Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that according to our records, the bomb did not leave [from] Malta. We are still firm in that conviction." (...)

Dr Borg said the letter to the UN requesting an inquiry was an interesting development that would be "deeply" considered, although he referred to complex issues surrounding the event.

"We cannot ignore that there were two judgments on Mr Al-Megrahi. The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded," Dr Borg added.

Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, said in his report following the original verdict that a "miscarriage of justice had occurred". Dr Koechler told The Sunday Times that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging.

The sentiment that political interests dominated the trial is echoed by Robert Black, the legal expert who was the architect of the original trial. He is one of the signatories to the letter demanding a full public inquiry.

Call for fresh inquiry into Lockerbie bomb conviction

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Times (behind the paywall).  It reads in part:]

Religious leaders, politicians and relatives of some victims of the Lockerbie bombing have called for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man found guilty of the attack.

In an open letter, the campaigners claimed the case against al-Megrahi “held water like a sieve” and was compromised by both the “bribing” of a witness and “the very real possibility” that key evidence in his trial had been fabricated.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Terry Waite, formerly the Archbishop of Canterbury’s special envoy, and Sir Teddy Taylor, a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, signed the letter, along with the journalists Kate Adie, Ian Hislop and John Pilger, and 35 others.

Al-Megrahi died at the weekend, almost three years after he was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government because he had [prostate] cancer.

The Scottish government denies that it granted his freedom in 2009 only after he decided to drop a second appeal against his conviction. It said that its decision was humane, in accordance with Scottish law.

Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said that al-Megrahi would answer to “a higher power”.

The campaigners ironically quote Mr MacAskill in their letter, which criticises the Scotttish government. “Fine words are not enough. Action is required,” say the authors.

“If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government acts by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair.

“As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.” (…)

Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey, who both lost daughters on the flight, are among the signatories, who criticised the actions of the Crown Office (the equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales).

“The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about,” write the authors.

They allege a serious of failings in the prosecution case, including the bribery of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who was a key Crown witness; the possibility that forensic evidence was fabricated; the retraction of some testimony; and the non-disclosure of other evidence. The letter adds: “Evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.”

The Scottish government rejected the inquiry and said that the issues being raised related to the conviction and “must be a matter for a court of law”.

A Scottish government spokesman said that Al-Megrahi’s relatives, or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity, were all entitled to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis.

He added: “Ministers would be entirely comfortable with that.”

A spokesman for the Crown Office said that the only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence was the criminal court.

[A similar article appears today in The Scotsman. A report in today’s edition of The Herald contains the following:]

Mr [Tam] Dalyell, a former Father of the House of Commons, told The Herald: "The SNP Government and Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill in particular are burying their heads in the sand on the Lockerbie issue. If they were to admit that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime of Lockerbie they would then by implication condemn the very institution which shows Scotland to be most separate from England – the justice system.

"The reason to pursue an inquiry after Megrahi's death, is that to not do so would leave an indelible stain on the Scottish justice system. It is about pursuing the truth. I simply do not think party politics should be played on this. If people or parties have to be embarrassed then so be it because they will have brought it on themselves by being less than candid. For the sake of the Scottish justice system we cannot let this go."

[It is sad, but entirely in character, to see the Scottish Government and the Crown Office repeating the tired old mantra that the only proper way to address concerns over the Megrahi conviction is through a court of law. It is indeed true that the only way that the verdict can be overturned is through a further appeal. But we have clear evidence now of flaws -- indeed wrongdoing -- in the Lockerbie investigation and in the conduct of the prosecution. It is quite certainly not the case that only way in which these matters can be ventilated is in an appeal against the verdict. They are matters which have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern; and that is precisely the test that must be satisfied for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It would be outrageous if police and Crown wrongdoing in a case could be exposed only if the accused person chose to exercise his right of appeal. Such wrongdoing is a matter of public concern and it is to address such concerns that the 2005 Act exists.  Moreover, such an inquiry could lead to a royal pardon (indeed royal pardons almost invariably flow from inquiries into cases in which there has been a conviction). A royal pardon does not overturn the verdict, which technically still stands, but it is an official recognition that the conviction was flawed. So there really is no constitutional or legal problem about asking for an inquiry into what went wrong in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case.]

Address to the People and Government of Scotland

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

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

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

The list of signatories is as follows:

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

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

Call on Malta to question Lockerbie witness

[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

The Maltese authorities should launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question a key Maltese witness, according to the UN monitor of the original trial of two Libyans.

Hans Koechler told The Sunday Times the government should defend the country's reputation and show the world its willingness to act in the interest of its people.

Prof Koechler was the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist that found Libyan Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing. His report after the trial said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.

The guilty verdict depended heavily on the testimony of Maltese witness Tony Gauci, who identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothes from his shop in Sliema that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

But in Mr Al-Megrahi's second appeal - which he dropped after being released from a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds - he was due to present evidence showing Mr Gauci's testimony to be replete with inconsistencies.

Documents published recently by Al-Megrahi's lawyers say that after the trial Mr Gauci was paid a sum "in excess of $2 million", while his brother Paul was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their cooperation. (...)

The abandonment of the appeal means, however, that Malta will remain associated with the 1988 terrorist act when a Pan Am 747 exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 259 people on board and 11 locals.

Mr Gauci's testimony was instrumental in convicting Mr Al-Megrahi.

The prosecution's argument was that the bomb left on an Air Malta flight and was eventually transferred to the Pan Am flight via Germany.

Prof Koechler told The Sunday Times he never understood why consecutive administrations in Malta had acted so timidly and done virtually nothing to prevent the country's reputation from being compromised.

"As a member of the United Nations and of the European Union, Malta must demonstrate vis-a-vis the world that it is able and willing to act in the interest of her people... If they are committed to the rule of law, the Maltese authorities should open their own investigation and interrogate Mr Gauci," Prof Koechler said.

He also urged the government to accept a request made to support an international attempt asking the UN to conduct an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.

A letter in this regard has been submitted to the President of UN General Assembly signed by a number of people, including families of the victims, renowned authors, politicians and journalists, as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - well known for his defence of human rights.

Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg had told The Sunday Times that the government is "considering" the request, but there have been no further developments since.

The letter requesting the government's support was sent to Dr Borg by Robert Black, the Scottish legal expert who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial. He has always spoken out against the original guilty verdict.

His letter to Dr Borg reads: "The signatories to this initiative are of the belief that both the good reputation of Malta and Luqa airport have been quite unjustly stained by association with this affair... We hope that Malta will use its best offices to advance this cause."

The Labour Party believes the government should accept the request. LP spokesman on Foreign Affairs George Vella said he would "not hesitate" to take up the issue in Parliament to push the government to take a stand on the issue.

He gave three reasons for this: the necessity for the truth to emerge, the possibility of establishing the bomb did not leave Malta, and the obligation to the victims' families to identify the real offender. He also stressed such an investigation would have to be sensitive to the victims' families.

Prof Black told The Sunday Times yesterday: "A UN inquiry could remove this wholly unjustified slur on the reputation of Malta, as well as clearing the name of a dying man."

HMA v HMA: The Next Pan Am 103 trial

[This is the headline over a blistering article on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm by Steven Raeburn, the editor. It reads as follows:]

As the discredited Pan Am 103 case continues to crumble further, with damning revelations coming to light on an almost daily basis, the failure of duty by some of Scotland’s senior law officers over the years since the aircraft was destroyed is becoming clearer. Their actions and inaction is being exposed to scrutiny that reinforces the UN trial observer Hans Kochler’s conclusion that they amount to new criminal offences in themselves. 

For example, The Herald is quoting former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd this morning as follows: 

“I reject the suggestion that I or anyone else in the prosecution team failed to disclose material evidence to the defence. All of the relevant CIA cables were disclosed subject to some exceptions, principally to ensure that the lives of named individuals were not put at risk. They were disclosed as a result of a request from the court directed to me. 

“I am satisfied that the Crown acted with propriety throughout the trial and endeavoured in this case, as with any other conducted in my name as Lord Advocate, to secure the accused’s right to a fair trial.”

Subject to some exceptions... This is crucial, and reveals the identifiable moment when the showpiece trial (or was it simply a show trial?) trial was corrupted. 

Leaving aside for the moment the numerous flaws in the handling of the case between 1988 and the commencement of the trial, co-accused Fhimah's solicitor Eddie McKechnie told me that the process of disclosure of these cables was tortuous. 

He said the Crown dissembled, hummed and hawed and delayed passing them over to the defence for months. (it was reported yesterday that the SCCRC threatened civil action against the Crown Office for the same reason.) As is now well known, the cables revealed only the useless testimony of CIA salaried informer Abdul Majid Giaka, whose evidence as a "fantasist" was dismissed in its entirety by the trial judges. 

What is not generally known, McKechnie told me, is that Crown Office themselves did not know what was in the cables until after the trial had commenced, because they had only been given redacted versions from the CIA, and hollow assurances from US intelligence that they contained key evidence that would stand up in court. In particular, they were told that Giaka could positively identify Megrahi and Fhimah and link them to the atrocity. 

The material in the cables was not evidence gathered by COPFS or Dumfries and Galloway police, as would normally be the case in a trial brought in Scotland. It was delivered on a plate fully formed by US intelligence services, a somewhat murky group of people not renowned for their honesty nor the integrity of their motivations. 

This point is rarely if ever understood or reported. It is often overlooked that Megrahi and Fhimah themselves were sourced and presented to the Crown Office by the CIA. They were not tracked down nor placed in the frame by Scottish investigators.

By the time the cable contents were disclosed, the trial arrangements were irrevocable and the geopolitical deals that continue to define this case were done at UK level in Westminster. Scots law was a passenger from this point, and a hijacked one at that. 

The revelation of the non-redacted cables is the key moment when the case should have been dropped by Lord Fraser, and where the criminal ineptitude begins. Everything COPFS has done since then (and the Scottish Government, to a more or less equal degree) is designed to shore up that mistake and the shoddy trial that resulted from it, and to deflect any suggestion of error, or worse. It was under Fraser’s tenure that key witness Tony Gauci was bribed, or rather, received “possible reward payments.” [RB: My understanding is that the payments were not made until after the Zeist trial in Lord Advocate Colin Boyd's tenure of office. There were, of course, inquiries, nods and winks aplenty long before that time.] 

Key Crown personnel can be forgiven for naiveté, but the mistakes that have been evidenced escalate from incompetence in the first instance, but morph into negligence, malfeasance and dereliction of duty as time has gone on and every opportunity to address and correct these issues is not only spurned, but actively blocked. The trial itself was tainted by the perpetuation of this error, as witnessed by United Nations Observer Hans Koechler. In 2005 he said that "the falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services," he observed at the Zeist trial were "criminal offences in any country."

He said that the "possible criminal responsibility, under Scots law, of people involved in the Lockerbie trial should be carefully studied by the competent prosecutorial authorities." 

Successive Crown regimes have aggressively protected their own flawed conduct to preserve the personal reputations of a very few. The justice system has suffered, and a new culture of paranoia, fear and insularity has put the Crown Office in a permanent mode of lockdown. The late Paul McBride described it as a siege mentality, although in the real world, removed from the paranoid fantasies of the Crown Office, the only assault it has actually been under is from the truth, sought by bereaved families, and, as time has gone on, a growing army of observers including luminaries such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Gareth Peirce, Robert Black QC, Cardinal Keith O Brien and those who signed an online petition submitted to the Holyrood petitions committee by the JFM group, all of whom have looked at the case for themselves and staked their reputations against the need for an inquiry. 

A full re-examination of the case will reveal the truth of Pan Am 103. It will also expose those culpable in our system to ridicule and the damning judgement of history.

If Scotland retained an independent Lord Advocate and a mature justice system, rather than the current degraded, paranoid runt of the once proud system, indictments would be issued at once by Frank Mulholland against former Lords Advocate Fraser, Boyd and Angiolini. Mulholland himself would step aside and submit to his successor for criminal scrutiny. The fact that the case of HMA v HMA is unlikely to appearing on the rolls of court anytime soon demonstrates the scale of the problem our system now faces in respect of this case. Her Majesty’s Advocate requires to investigate itself, but will not. Does the ICC now beckon? We are through the looking glass now.

Media coverage of Justice for Megrahi petition hearing

[The best coverage of yesterday's hearing before the Holyrood Public Petitions Committee is to be found in The Times. It can be read -- but only by subscribers -- here. The report reads in part:]

The Scottish legal establishment was accused at a Holyrood committee yesterday of putting obstacles in the way of an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.

The claim was made by Canon Patrick Keegans, who was the local Catholic priest in Lockerbie at the time of the disaster in December 1988.

He was giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s petitions committee in support of a 1600-signature petition organised by the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) campaign calling on the Scottish government to set up an inquiry.

Members of the group told MSPs a full independent inquiry was the only way to restore the reputation of the Scottish legal system. (...)

Canon Keegans told MSPs on the committee: “People have never found a full answer to Lockerbie and this will always be a source of distress.”

Canon Keegans, who lived in Sherwood Crescent, part of which was obliterated by falling debris from the aircraft said the case was about the “redemption of the Scottish justice system”.

He added: “We have been denied justice from the very beginning. I am very doubtful about the conviction of al-Megrahi. While doubt remains the victims are denied justice. What we need is the truth about Lockerbie.

He added: “Obstacles have been put in our way by the Crown Office and by the judiciary. There seems to be a desire to put a lid on this and keep it there.

“We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.”

Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the bombing, said the reputation of Scottish justice had been “shot to pieces”.

He said only an impartial inquiry could rebuild that reputation. Swire said the original criminal investigation was run by Scottish police forces and involved Scottish lawyers.

They were, he added, two obvious groups who might be interested in protecting their reputations.

“Speaking as a relative who has been looking for the truth for 22 years I think it would be vital that any inquiry is seen to be led impartially. Such an inquiry would be of little value if it was deemed to be in any way limited by groups involved in the trial.”

Mr Swire said an inquiry was the only way “we will be able to heal the terrible wounds done to our justice system”.

Professor Robert Black, emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, said: “The fact of the conviction is being used as an excuse for not holding a wide ranging inquiry.”

He added: “We are asking the Scottish government to set up an inquiry. The government cannot deny there is domestic and international concern. We are asking them to investigate these concerns.”

Both First Minister Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, have said they have confidence in the conviction of al-Megrahi.

After hearing from the campaigners, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish government asking them to respond to the request for an independent inquiry.

The petition has already attracted the support of Cardinal Keith O’Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, as well as Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[Less detailed reports can be found in The Scotsman, The Herald, The Press and Journal, The Courier, the Daily Record, The Sun and, in the USA, Fox. The report in the Dumfries and Galloway Standard, a twice-weekly newspaper circulating in the Lockerbie area, can be read here.]