Speculation, suspicions over Lockerbie saga

The release of Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, has caused an outrage in the United States, among opposition politicians in the UK and naturally, among most of the relatives of the victims. Al-Megrahi, who is dying of cancer, was released on "compassionate grounds" by the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, so that he could return home to die in peace - a comfort denied to the Lockerbie victims.

The release of Al-Megrahi was always going to be controversial; 270 people - 180 of them Americans - were murdered in cold blood in December 1988 and the Libyan intelligence agent was the only person convicted of this terrible crime. Doubts had been expressed over his conviction by legal experts while others believe it was safe beyond reasonable doubt.

I will not dwell on claims that Al-Megrahi was innocent, and indeed his release does not prove his innocence. The freeing of Al-Megrahi simply complicates matters: in order to be released on compassionate grounds he had to drop his appeal into his conviction, which was to have been heard shortly. A Scottish review court had said there were sufficient grounds which could have led to the reopening of the case. This will now never happen.

So despite the investigation into the bombing, the trial by a Scottish court in the Netherlands and Al-Megrahi's conviction, many questions over who was really behind this atrocity remain unanswered. This is indeed sad, particularly for the victims' families.

Many observers, for example, have pointed to possible Syrian and Iranian involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. One theory suggests that Syria was too important for the Middle East peace process to be taken on directly, Iran was simply too powerful, while Libya was an easy target; but of course it seems that we will really never know.

The Maltese government, for example, has always denied that the Lockerbie bomb left on an Air Malta flight from the island, a stand reiterated by Foreign Minister Tonio Borg last week. "The position of the government has never changed on this matter. Malta was not involved in this incident. The bomb never left from Malta," Dr Borg said.

While there is no concrete proof that Al-Megrahi's release was part of a deal between the UK and Libya, which paved the way for stronger commercial ties, it has to be acknowledged that the West's engagement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which began some years ago, made the release of Al-Megrahi a possibility, especially if such a release was on "compassionate grounds".

Some analysts believe that an 'understanding' was reached on the possible release of Al-Megrahi during a visit by Tony Blair to Libya in 2007, in which lucrative oil and gas deals were clinched for British companies. This has been strongly denied by the British government.

However, the suggestion by Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, Colonel Gaddafi's son, that Al-Megrahi's transfer was on the "negotiating table" in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with the UK has certainly not helped matters, even though he later said his comments were taken out of context.

The initial silence by Prime Minister Gordon Brown over Al-Megrahi's release added to the speculation that some sort of deal had been reached by the UK and Tripoli, which involved business interests. After a few days' silence on the matter Brown only said that he was both "angered" and "repulsed" by the hero's welcome afforded to Al-Megrahi on his return to Tripoli, but the Prime Minister chose not to comment on the actual release.

Brown was right to have been angered and repulsed. After all, he had specifically asked Gaddafi to keep the whole affair low-key.

MacAskill also said he was disappointed by the Tripoli reception, especially since he was promised by the Libyan authorities that no such celebrations would take place. The welcome given to Al-Megrahi was at best in bad taste, at worst an insult to the memory of the Lockerbie victims and behaviour that showed a distinct lack of sensitivity.

It is true that Scotland has a different legal system to the rest of the UK, and that the Scottish Justice Secretary was entirely within his rights to order the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds. However, this does not mean Brown was right to remain silent on the decision to release Al-Megrahi. His silence has simply added to the perception that some sort of deal was made, and the public will now remain suspicious, especially every time the UK and Libya announce a major business agreement.

The full truth of the Lockerbie bombing has never emerged and probably never will. Al-Megrahi's release means that an appeal will now not take place and that there will be no further investigations into the mater.

Sadly, the families of the 270 victims have been let down.