The 'Lockerbie bomber's' request to drop the appeal he fought so hard to gain smacks of a political deal, according to a legal expert appointed by the UN to monitor the trial.
Hans Koechler told The Sunday Times he is of the opinion that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging. If Abdel Basset Al Megrahi remains convicted, the accusation that the bomb which killed 270 people left Malta would stand, he said.
Dr Koechler's view is echoed by the Scottish legal expert who was the architect of the original trial in the Netherlands in 2001, Robert Black, who termed the original verdict "a disgrace".
The repercussions for Malta were also raised by criminal lawyer Emmanuel Mallia, who had followed proceedings and examined evidence at the trial: "We shall still be lumped with this accusation that our airport aided and abetted the alleged perpetrators."
The Lockerbie appeal in Scotland made international headlines after the announcement that Mr Al Megrahi, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, may be released on compassionate grounds this week. In this case, the appeal would continue.
The news was welcomed by some British relatives of the victims who repeatedly said they did not believe Mr Al Megrahi was the bomber. But a chorus of disapproval was raised in the US where families of the American victims said the request was unacceptable. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined senior US officials in pressing Scotland not to release the Libyan.
This was immediately followed by the news that Mr Al Megrahi requested the withdrawal of his appeal. He has been serving a life prison sentence for the 1988 terrorist act.
Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al Megrahi had originally placed the bomb on an Air Malta flight. It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport to Pan Am flight 103A that later exploded over Lockerbie after leaving London Heathrow.
One of the main witnesses was a Sliema shop owner who identified Mr Al Megrahi as the one who bought the clothes in which the bomb was wrapped. Doubts were, however, cast over the validity of his testimony.
Dr Mallia told The Sunday Times that Mr Al Megrahi did everything in his power to show the world that the machinery of justice wrongly convicted him, adding that giving up his appeal may well have been a condition for his release on compassionate grounds.
"I would never believe that Basset (Al Megrahi) would have given up on his appeal, after he had worked so hard to seek 'true' justice," he said.
This was also the view of the Scottish legal expert, Prof. Black. Speaking to The Sunday Times yesterday, he said the decision to drop the appeal smacked of an intergovernmental arrangement with which Mr Al Megrahi believed he had no option but to comply.
Controversy has long surrounded the original trial as well as his second appeal in 2002, which Mr Al Megrahi lost. Concerns were raised that the judgment was based on circumstantial evidence, a view also held by Dr Koechler who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the trial.
Dr Koechler now says that if the ongoing appeal is dropped, the truth may never come out and justice will never be done. "Neither the UK nor the Scottish establishment is interested in the truth.
"The constellation of interests between the UK and Libya is such that both sides have decided to put the past behind and engage in a new phase of 'realpolitik'," he added.
He insisted that if Mr Al Megrahi is released now, it would seem like a political deal.
Prof. Black was of a similar opinion: "I think there probably was some deal arrived at between the UK and Libyan governments that involved Mr Al Megrahi dropping his appeal. I can think of no other reason why he should do so."
Insisting there was no proof that the bomb ever left from Malta, Prof. Black said the conviction of Mr Al Megrahi was a disgrace.
On this point, Dr Mallia said that, with hindsight, many may argue that the Maltese government at the time could have acted differently, and that Malta was perhaps too compliant. The government gave access to the foreign Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary.
He hoped this would serve as a lesson for future instances when foreign police and 'others' request aid from our state to carry out investigations in Malta.
When one examines the many handwritten statements allegedly taken from many 'key' people by foreign police officers, many may argue that much left to be desired, Dr Mallia said.
He said it was a pity that the judicial pronouncement of guilt would stand without the opportunity of further judicial review, but the lawyer added he was sure much would be written on this subject that "will put 'many' in the dock so that the general public can form their own verdicts".
"I am sure there are local authorities who may have very important documents which, when revealed, may show that Malta had absolutely nothing to do with this unfortunate and tragic episode in history," Dr Mallia said.
The Maltese government has so far declined to comment on the issue.