Campaigners present Lockerbie bomber inquiry case

[This is the headline over a report that appeared on the BBC News website on this date in 2010. It reads as follows:]

Campaigners calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber have taken their case to Holyrood.

About 1,500 people have signed a petition by the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group for an independent probe into Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's case.

Members of the group, including Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 atrocity, appeared before Holyrood's petitions committee.

He said it was "imperative" that the Scottish government opened an inquiry.

Mr Swire said the case had "deeply damaging effects" on the country's criminal justice system.

Megrahi remains the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, in which 270 people were killed.

The Libyan was released from prison in Scotland in August last year on compassionate grounds when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and thought to have three months to live.

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 and Have I Got News for You? TV star Ian Hislop.

The witnesses appearing before MSPs also included Edinburgh University Emeritus Scots Law Professor Robert Black, an architect of the non-jury Lockerbie trial under Scots Law in the neutral Netherlands in 2000.

He has since called the verdict a "miscarriage of justice".

Megrahi dropped a second appeal against his conviction in the run-up to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to free him on compassionate grounds.

However, campaigners have said they could possibly try to pick up the appeal against conviction if he dies.

[On the same date Anne McLaughlin (then MSP, now MP) wrote the following on her blog:]

As a member of the Petitions Committee in Parliament I am particularly looking forward to tomorrow's meeting. We will hear evidence from Jim Swire, father of Flora who was one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. He'll be presenting evidence in support of his petition calling for an enquiry into the conviction of Megrahi. He'll do so alongside Professor Robert Black and Iain McKie, father of Shirley.

I've met Iain McKie a couple of times through previous work and found him to be both charismatic and inspirational. And of course Jim Swire has to be one of the most compassionate people ever. I don't know if they have a point in claiming that Megrahi is innocent. What I do know is that it would be all too easy (and understandable) for Mr Swire to accept Megrahi's guilt and put all of his negativity energy in that direction.

But he didn't accept it. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of the conviction and as you can see is campaigning for an enquiry into it. I guess it's important to him that they get the right person but how tempting must it have been to turn a blind eye and blame the man with the conviction?

The other thing that occurs to me is that tomorrow, as I imagine is always the case, he will give evidence and in the recesses of his mind will be this image of his daughter, his flesh and blood, a young woman with a zest for life who only got to live for 24 years. That pain must never leave him and for that reason I am in awe of him and have nothing but the deepest respect.

[RB: The petition (PE1370) remains open, and is now on the work programme of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee.]

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.]

Malta's interest in the Lockerbie case

1. From an item posted on this blog on 29 November 2009:

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.

2. From an item posted on this blog on 29 November 2013:

Maltese minister believes Megrahi innocent

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

The Foreign Minister of Malta has revealed that he does not believe the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was responsible.

George Vella made the comment about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was found guilty over the tragedy which took place 25 years ago.

The claim is the most direct by a serving minister about the controversial conviction, based around the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper and his brother.

Speaking on Times Talk television programme in Malta, Dr Vella said the government did not intend to point fingers at one country or other, but in view of the evidence that was emerging, he personally felt that the case needed to be heard once more before new judges in the interests of justice, not least that of Megrahi, who died last year.

Malta had good relations with the countries involved in the case, including the US and the UK but it has also just signed a memo-randum of understanding with Libya to agree preferential rates for oil and gas, once the country is back on its feet.

According to The Times of Malta, Dr Vella said his personal belief was that the bomb which downed the Pan Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie was a revenge attack after an Iranian passenger aircraft was shot down by a US warship in 1988.

Earlier in the programme, lawyer Dr Giannella de Marco said there was never any evidence to back the claim that the Lockerbie bomb was loaded on an Air Malta flight from Malta to Frankfurt and then to London for the Pan Am 103 flight because all luggage on the Air Malta aircraft in question had been accounted for and there were no unaccompanied bags.

Dr Vella agreed and said that once there was no evidence that the bomb started its journey in Malta, one could never find Malta-based Megrahi guilty. Nor did it make sense that of two accused, one was convicted and the other Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima was acquitted. With regard to reward money promised to Tony and Paul Gauci for their evidence in the Lockerbie trial, Dr Vella said that at no stage did the Gauci brothers actually request money.

However, Dr de Marco said there was evidence that the statements by the Gaucis changed several times, there was talk of reward money and money was given. Tony Gauci gave several versions of his description of Megrahi. He said one could not depend on a person who was inconsistent and was paid at the end of his evidence.

Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has repeatedly said that the type of bomb used could not have been loaded on an aircraft from Malta or Frankfurt as it would have exploded earlier.

Dr Vella, whose comments were broadcast earlier this week, is favourite to be named President of the Republic when Dr George Abela's term expires in April. [RB: Dr Vella remains Malta’s Foreign Minister.  The president is currently Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.] His comments on Lockerbie were broadcast earlier this week.

Professor Robert Black, emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, said: "For a foreign minister to say that the verdict of a court of a friendly foreign country is wrong, is almost an unprecedented event. It is highly significant that the Foreign Minister of Malta has said this."

Alex Salmond and the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi

[A number of media organisations in their reflections on Alex Salmond’s tenure of office as First Minister on his last full day, refer to the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Here is an example from today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph:]

The Scottish Government’s decision to release the man convicted of Britain’s worst mass murder prompted revulsion and criticism from around the world, especially when he was given a hero’s welcome in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, complete with a crowd waving Scottish flags.

Although the decision was ostensibly made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, Salmond’s involvement was shown later by a series of letters in which he lobbied figures such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Donald Trump to publicly support it.

The bomber was released on compassionate grounds as he supposedly had less than three months to live but ended up living nearly three years, prompting further fury from some of the families of his victims.

[If the release decision was overwhelmingly unpopular overseas (by which is meant the United States) the same cannot be said of domestic public opinion. What follows is from an item posted on this blog on 4 September 2009:]

Almost half of all Scots now support Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's controversial decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in a dramatic shift in public opinion.

The YouGov poll of 1556 people found 45% thought Mr MacAskill made the right call to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last month on compassionate grounds. The same percentage said he was wrong.

[And the following poll results from Scottish local newspapers is taken from an item posted on this blog on 31 August 2009:]

Those For first number, those Against second number

Dumfries & Galloway Standard 88.4% 11.6%

Annandale Observer 73% 27% (Lockerbie paper)

Perthshire Advertiser 90.6% 8.4%

Ross-shire Journal 87% 13%

Scotsman 58% 42%

Lennox Herald 80.5% 19.5%

Oban Times 89% 11%

Kilmarnock Standard 72.5% 28.5%

East Kilbride News 71% 29%

West Lothian Courier 75.2% 24.8%

Hamilton Advertiser 60.3% 39.7%

Airdrie Advertiser 56.1% 43.9%

Wishaw Press 83% 17%

Paisley Daily Express 62.23% 37.7%

The progress of Justice for Megrahi's Scottish Parliament petition

What follows is taken from an item posted on this blog on this date in 2010:

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.

The progress of Justice for Megrahi’s petition to the Scottish Parliament from summer 2010 up to the present day can be followed here.

Scottish Government shirking responsibilities by expecting foreign authorities to pick up gauntlet

What follows is taken from an item posted on this blog four years ago today:

Call for public inquiry into bombing

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

Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.

In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.

The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.

First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.

The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.

“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?

“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.

“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.

“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.

“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”

The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.

Lockerbie relative: Grieve MH17 through love, not revenge

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Jim Swire published today on the CNN website. It reads as follows:]

Editor's note: Jim Swire is the father of Flora, who was one of the 270 victims of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

The first question for many relatives of the victims of MH17, as for us after Lockerbie, will be whether their loved ones suffered.

Explosive decompression of an aircraft fuselage at 35,000 feet will cause almost instantaneous loss of consciousness. Explosive decompression is a terribly apt phrase.

If it turns out to be true that MH17 was hit by a Buk Soviet-era SA missile, their warheads contain about 140 times the explosive in the PA 103 bomb. It seems impossible therefore that anyone aboard could have remained aware to suffer in the aftermath.

The essence of the tragedy of MH17 is the suffering of the relatives. Some will need to view the bodies of those they lost. Surely they deserve security to say their last farewells. They should have that option. Bodies need to be treated with respect and precision of identification.

I believe that in the case of MH17 the United Nations should also oversee immediate sending of an international team of investigators, covered by force if necessary, to ensure that relatives' needs, the bodies themselves and the evidence field are protected. It is already very late, but not too late. There has already been looting, abhorrent to relatives, there is something particularly unsavory about the thought of unauthorised interference with bodies, or indeed personal effects of the dead.

There will now be some uncertainty about the evidential material on site. Maybe the U.N. should in future have a standby arrangement for immediate deployment of such an international "sterilizing force." Even in the case of Lockerbie, evidence emerged in court of improper interference with potentially evidential material on the crash site within Scotland.

In the UK we found that a relatives' group predicated on the concept of allowing everyone to grieve in their own way, but always there to support its members, helped. The humanist, highly caring, relative co-ordinating our group cannot know how many of us she has helped through her dedication and skills.

One of the most difficult yet most rewarding aspects of Christ's philosophy was to extend love to others even when they seem to be your enemy. We have witnessed the bitterness and personal destruction that can spring from rampant lust for revenge.

Lust for revenge is natural, but self-defeating, for the consequence of revenge is so often further revenge. Nor does it even bring peace of mind to the avenger. Of course we condemn the actions of perpetrators and would rightly have them punished for what they have done, but we don't have to hate the perpetrators themselves. Imprisoned, they may emerge one day to do good.

The late Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu helped to create the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That concept can only work if truth precedes the attempts at reconciliation. Truth may become a fickle wraith for families to pursue through the labyrinth of International politics. It was Mandela too who publicly warned, long before the trial of those accused by the U.S. and UK of responsibility for Lockerbie, that: "No one country should be complainant, prosecutor and judge."

The West ignored this warning.

It is perhaps significant that the Netherlands, which lost far more citizens in MH17 than any other country, finds herself already the home of the International Criminal Court.

Powerful governments have powerful means of controlling what we know and believe. International courts should be immune to that. Perversely it was the evidence produced at the Lockerbie trial in Zeist, Holland, which confirmed for some that Moammar Gaddafi's Libya was responsible.

But for other close watchers, there were doubts there which have now greatly increased and led 25 UK Lockerbie relatives, together with members of the family of the one Libyan found guilty, recently to lodge a request for a third appeal against the Zeist verdict with Scotland's Criminal Case Review Commission.

Nowadays we have a better route, through the International Criminal Court, and what those of us who are not MH17 relatives should do is to monitor and encourage all efforts to pass the whole known truth to the MH17 relatives and to discover and detain those responsible. It is no coincidence that Holland already hosts the ICC, for that nation's record in support of international justice is outstanding.

MH17 relatives may also find help from the small UK charity Disaster Action. This cannot deal with so huge a tragedy directly but carries within it wisdom distilled from Lockerbie and other tragedies.