It is now a full year since the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, stepped out of HM Prison Greenock a free man to return home to Libya and his family via the provision of compassionate release under due process of Scottish Law.
A decision taken in consideration of the prisoner’s terminal medical condition. From that moment until today, the protests at the decision taken by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, have ranged from US President Obama’s limp pronouncement of outrage to US senators summoning MacAskill and First Minister Alex Salmond to Washington to account for their actions.
What if, however, Al-Megrahi is, in fact, innocent of the crime he was convicted of on the basis of the evidence placed before judges at Kamp van Zeist?
Surely, then, arguments over the circumstances of his release, engaging though they may be in their own right, would pale into insignificance. It was precisely that question which moved the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal on no fewer than six grounds for appeal.
Six grounds which included that on crucial factual matters the trial court reached conclusions that no reasonable court could have reached on the evidence heard. These centre on the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness, Tony Gauci, at Zeist, where judges did not know and so could not take into account the issue of payments of $2,000,000 and $1,000,000 to himself and his brother respectively.
Unfortunately, it seems we are now to be denied the opportunity to hear an answer to ‘What if?’
The Scottish judiciary chose to set the appeal process to last over an unconscionably lengthy period; the 90-day window for Libya’s application for release under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), to which Holyrood took so much umbrage, signed by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddafi, expired; MacAskill had an unprecedented private discussion with Al-Megrahi at Greenock; the appeal was bizarrely dropped and, days later, Al-Megrahi was repatriated. Bizarrely, because whereas, under the PTA no prisoner can be freed while any legal process is ongoing, under the terms of compassionate release no such restriction applies.
With the dropping of the appeal, the last best hope of resolving the issues and addressing the doubts over the safety of this conviction took to the skies with Al-Megrahi.
Ever since that moment, attempts have been made to engage the General Assembly of the United Nations, the government of Malta, the US Senate and the Scottish government in an effort to open a full, open and public inquiry encompassing all aspects of the Lockerbie case, from the events of 1988 through to the present day, in the hope of getting to the bottom of this increasingly murky pool... as yet to no avail.
When it came to granting compassionate release to Al-Megrahi, the Scottish government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs through Westminster’s PTA arrangements.
When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, although Salmond has expressed some muted enthusiasm for the idea, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London?
We formally request that the Scottish government establish an inquiry post-haste into the entire Lockerbie/Zeist case, and such a body should have the remit and powers to investigate the following:
• The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
• The police investigation of the tragedy.
• The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
• The acquittal of Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah and conviction of Al-Megrahi.
• The SCCRC’s referral of Al-Megrahi’s case to the Court of Appeal.
• The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Al-Megrahi.
An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a convenient device with which to achieve expedient results in defence of human frailties, thus obscuring the truth, and a placebo with which to placate the bereaved, we are all in a very sorry state indeed.
A step of this nature will go some considerable way towards restoring faith in Scotland‘s once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.
The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. We fully and deeply sympathise with those bereaved friends and families who believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe.
Nevertheless, if Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. It is our belief that all the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.
The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth in the name of justice itself. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.
Mr Forrester is a member of the Justice for Megrahi Committee.