Editorial

Was the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on "compassionate grounds" an act of humanity or a deal? Government authorities in Britain and Scotland have consistently dismissed widespread allegations of a deal with Libya but, rightly or wrongly, many believe the move goes beyond compassion and is meant to protect Britain's commercial interests in a country possessing vast oil and gas reserves. It will probably take time for the whole background to the move to unravel, but until then the Lockerbie story will not fade away, however much the British and Scottish governments will wish it to do so.

Scotland's decision has greatly infuriated the United States and many families of the victims. The US government yesterday "deeply regretted" the decision, seen by others as vile and immoral. In its view, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer and only three months to live, should continue to serve his remaining time in jail in Scotland. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was accused of using uncharacteristically undiplomatic language when she called on Scotland not to release the bomber, but her views were endorsed by many who shared the horror of the bombing and who, quite rightly, expected justice to take its full course.

British relatives of the victims are said to have welcomed the news of Mr Megrahi's release as they do not believe he was the bomber. However, no fewer than eight judges have been convinced of his guilt, based on evidence produced in court during his trial and in his first appeal. The release has now closed the door to the possibility of getting to the whole truth of the Pan Am bombing, that is, if there is in fact more to be told, unless new avenues are opened at some other time in the future. Some newspapers are already speculating that Mr Megrahi's release is bound to provoke new demands by Lockerbie families in the US for an independent inquiry into the bombing, but it is hard to believe this will happen.

The families of British victims may well believe that Mr Megrahi is not the real bomber, but was it not in the interest of justice for the second appeal, once lodged, to be heard? Indeed, obstacles delaying the case should have been removed in time for the appeal to be heard with urgency, more so when his condition was made known. The fact that this was not done must have certainly strengthened the growing widespread belief that there might have been other factors, other than compassion, that led to the bomber's release.

A legal expert appointed by the US to monitor the trial did not quibble when he said he was of the opinion that oil interests and joint security considerations had prevented the truth from emerging. And a leading British national newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, has not minced words either, saying the affair had grown murkier and murkier. It asked if a deal had been worked out to cement Britain's much-improved relationship with Libya, pointing out there was also the little matter of BP's desire to exploit the huge reserves of Libya's oil and gas, which was enmeshed in Tripoli's fabled red tape.

Malta has a direct interest in the matter as the bomb that killed the Pan Am passengers was said to have started its journey from the island. For this reason, it would have been in the island's interest if the judicial process had taken its full course.