A LAWYER representing the family of the late Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in their court bid to clear him of blame for the Lockerbie bombing has criticised America’s timing in announcing it intended to indict another man for the atrocity.
The destruction of Pan Am flight 103, travelling from London to New York on December 21 1988, killed 270 people in Britain’s worst ever terrorist atrocity.
Megrahi, who was found guilty of mass murder in 2001 and jailed for life with a minimum 27-year term, was the only person to be convicted of the attack. He was released from prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds while terminally ill with cancer and died in Libya in 2012.
American media reports claimed the US Justice Department expected to unseal charges in the coming days, with Abu Agila Mas’ud named as the suspect that will be indicted.
Five appeal judges in Edinburgh are currently deliberating whether to acquit Megrahi after the conclusion of the third appeal against his conviction last month.
Lawyer Aamer Anwar, who is acting for the Megrahi family, said the timing of the American announcement was suspect.
“How ‘convenient’ that this should happen just as the decision of the Megrahi miscarriage of justice appeal in the Scottish courts is awaited,” he said. “It’s difficult not to be cynical about the motivation of the Americans, that on the eve of the anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing as well as the appeal decision, the US now wish to indict an individual, 32 years after the bombing, what exactly have they been doing up until now?
“Why would the Attorney General William Barr wait just as he is about to step down from the Justice Department, considering that he has been involved with this case since 1991 … It is once again a matter of deep concern that the Americans claim to have shared information with Scottish authorities in 2017, yet for some reason this information was never disclosed to the Megrahi family’s legal team.”
Anwar’s comments came as Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the attack and is convinced that Megrahi was innocent, said he hoped the truth would come out. He told BBC Breakfast: “My position has been difficult in that I cannot bring myself to feel that the evidence we’ve heard so far does in fact point us towards the truth of who committed those 270 foul murders back in 1988 … I do hope that with what’s going on at the moment, coming up to the 32nd anniversary of this awful business on Monday, that some truth will come out of what’s happening now.”
US journalist Ken Dornstein told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that he had passed fresh information about Mas’ud to the FBI after he discovered more details about him.
He added: “I think a little bit of truth, if it can be established beyond any real doubt in this case, is always important to fight for.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel