Sunday, 1st November 2009
Malta won't probe Lockerbie witness
Victim's father urges government to search for 'truth and justice'
Jim Swire: "So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become."
The government "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of key Lockerbie trial witness Tony Gauci, despite claims his evidence wrongly incriminated the Libyan man convicted of the bombing.
The Justice Ministry was forced to issue a denial yesterday after British newspaper The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed Maltese official legal sources saying Malta wanted to look at Mr Gauci's claims.
The ministry said in a statement: "Government categorically denies that any government official said that the Maltese government is preparing to look into the testimony Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the trial. The Maltese government is not prepared to do any such thing."
The government's statement was criticised yesterday by the man appointed by the UN to monitor the Lockerbie trial as well as the father of one of the victims.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, both men urged the Maltese authorities to press ahead with an investigation "in the interests of truth and justice".
Mr Gauci, a Sliema shopkeeper, had identified Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothes from his shop later found wrapped around the Lockerbie bomb.
His testimony was key to the decision that held the Libyan responsible for the explosion aboard a Pan Am 747 that killed 270 people as it flew over the Scottish village of Lockerbie en-route to New York in December 1988.
Documents published recently by Mr Al-Megrahi's lawyers claim 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.
Mr Gauci's evidence had strengthened the prosecution's claim the bomb left from Luqa airport in a suitcase boarded onto an Air Malta flight bound for Germany.
The government yesterday reiterated that since 1988 successive Maltese governments had "always maintained the bomb which downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced".
The architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish lawyer Robert Black, backed the government's stand when contacted yesterday, insisting that a broader inquiry would make more sense.
"I was very surprised by The Daily Telegraph story. I would be amazed if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness.
"Malta can be realistically asked to support an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie case, which would also include the testimony of Tony Gauci, which is the weakest link in the whole affair," Prof. Black said.
His view contrasted with that of Prof. Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial.
"I regret Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations. The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," Prof. Koechler said when contacted.
Only last Sunday he had urged the Maltese authorities to launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question Mr Gauci.
Prof. Koechler's report after the trial that found Mr Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.
Meanwhile, the father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Jim Swire, said any objective reinvestigation of the Al-Megrahi case "would be welcome".
However, he expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci.
"So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become that much depends on how far the Maltese are prepared to go to clear their island's name, despite the immediate US displeasure that is no doubt already descending upon them following The Daily Telegraph article," he said.
Dr Swire insisted the evidence from Malta against Mr Al-Megrahi was always "deeply flawed".
"The identification of the buyer and the date of the sale of the clothes were never satisfactorily established, as objective Maltese investigators would no doubt have confirmed," he said. Idendifying the date the clothes were bought was also crucial, he added, since for Mr Al-Megrahi to be relevant to the whole affair the purchase had to have taken place in early December.
Mr Al-Megrahi was in Malta at that time but a thorough investigation would have led the Maltese authorities to conclude that the sale actually happened towards the end of November, Dr Swire explained, when the Libyan was not in Malta.
He also highlighted that a senior member of the Scots' team (Harry Bell) recorded during his visits to the island that the US authorities were offering Mr Gauci $10,000 up front and $2 million to follow.
"This must be significant and Maltese investigators might have been able now to access details of this scandalous attempt at witness bribery by looking at the documentation provided by the Megrahi defence team," Dr Swire said, calling on the Maltese government to show resolve and carry out its own investigation.
Mr Al-Megrahi, who suffers from advanced prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish jail last August on compassionate grounds after being given three months to live. He returned to Libya and protested his innocence.
RSS
Comments
It is more of you scratch my back and i scratch yours.
if it is convenient for some parties that this tragedy is gone and forgotten, and the powers that be have decided that that how things will remain and there is nothing that the you and me can do about it.
realpolitik.
Did it occur to you that those clothes may have been available from many shops?
Did it occur to you that they may have been given as a gift?
Did it occur to you that they may have been bought in another country?
Did it occur to you that there was a break-in in a foreign airport where the plane took off?
You should be ashamed of yourself to say that the bomb may have left Malta.
"There again why should one feel Malta's good name is tarnished because one of its citizens may or may not have been bribed?"
Why should one feel Malta's good name has been tarnished? Implicating Malta because the witness was bribed and you don't feel anything for your country?Are you living in this world Cecil? My what gall some people have!!!!!!!!
Otherwise, I'm afriad to say that monies in compensations have been paid and embargoes did what they had to do. Has the truth really emerged ??
Maybe, since this case has re-appeared, the world Civil Aviation authority the ICAO should have a say in this, independent of any Government. At the end of the day, a civil aircraft was involved in this incident. The ICAO was formed in order to make air travel safer for people such as myself.
May I finally add, "The politics of this case scare me really"
Good decision, Government of Malta, stick to it. You do not need to show any resolve in any manner in this matter. GOOD.............VERY GOOD INDEED
Libya has paid massive conpensation to the victims relatives, it also endured an embargo for many years, what else.............
This is a case of complete cowardice, and not about truth and justice !!!
COWARDICE...................PURE ROTTEN COWARDICE
Concerning the search for Truth and Justice, the Pan Am trajedy is not the only tragedy ..............
God Bless all the victims of Violence, WORLDWIDE.
Yes I suppose the Government has a right to probe the evidence but if you have read the article above properly it mentions that since 1988 successive Maltese governments concluded that the bomb did not board an aircraft from Malta. So what is there to probe other than perhaps the alleged bribery of the so called prime witness? There again why should one feel Malta's good name is tarnished because one of its citizens may or may not have been bribed? I have no doubt that any Maltese government would lend assistance to an authorized probe.
OK, the citizens would like to know why.
The Maltese Government has the right to probe the evidence given because first of all because it implicated Malta, the witness was a Maltese citizen and it put Malta into very bad light.