Brian Wilson: Big question that needs asked on Abdalbaset al-Megrahi

The claim by Abdalbaset al-Megrahi that he dropped his appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing on the understanding that this would improve his prospects for compassionate release go to the heart of the Scottish legal system and must be pursued by MSPs.

Megrahi states that this belief was communicated to him at second-hand having originated with the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill. Whether true or false, Megrahi’s account coincides precisely with what then unfolded. He dropped his appeal and was released by MacAskill on compassionate grounds.

MacAskill is a minister accountable to the Scottish Parliament and it is now the inescapable obligation of that body to get to the bottom of what transpired in the lead-up to Megrahi’s release. His claim that he acted in response to a message communicated by MacAskill via a Libyan official must be tested against all available evidence.

On past form, this will not happen. The Scottish Parliament’s capacity for forensic examination of anything is lamentable. Its record in holding ministers to account is unimpressive. The likelihood, unless someone makes it their business to ensure a different outcome, is that this latest allegation will be dismissed with the usual bluster.

When previously called on to answer the charge that he encouraged Megrahi to drop his appeal, MacAskill responded with the immortal analogy: “There’s loads of stories about Megrahi. There’s a veritable industry out there as there is about whether Elvis Presley is alive and working in some chip shop in Fife”.

One would hardly have thought that he was referring to the premature release of a man convicted, under Scots law, of murdering 270 people. The question is now whether, in response to a much more specific testimony from the source with least reason to be hostile to MacAskill, the same cocktail of sneer and dismissal will serve him equally well.

That is in the hands of MSPs. They must consider that what is at stake is the historic reputation of the Scottish legal system due to the certainty that MacAskill’s carefully-worded semi-denials will be widely disbelieved. The assumption will be fostered that Megrahi was telling the truth thereby begging the question of why the Scottish Government wanted him to drop his appeal.

This in turn will feed the belief that the Scottish justice system had much to hide, as claimed by Megrahi’s biographer, John Ashton. Thus, without ever being sustained in a court of law, it will become received wisdom that the Scottish legal system – confronted with the most serious criminal act in our history – delivered a monumental miscarriage of justice. And there will be no right of reply.

The reputation of the prosecutors who sought, and the judges who delivered, that verdict will be cruelly tarnished. And most important of all, the bereaved of Lockerbie will be left without an answer other than the parrot-cry that the Scottish legal system was wrong and Megrahi was the victim. All of this will continue ad infinitum unless MSPs urgently summon the collective strength to seek a definitive answer to the key question: “Why did Megrahi withdraw his appeal?”.

Like almost everyone else, I do not have any certainty about the answer to that question. And like every other citizen who lives under the law of Scotland, I am entitled to a credible one. It is an affront beyond reason that, in this of all cases, the politician who is supposed to uphold the integrity of our justice system has created a scenario in which – on the most important criminal case ever to confront it – its reputation will be permanently besmirched.

All of this reinforces my original view that MacAskill’s decision to release Megrahi was an outrageous error with far-reaching consequences. This was not out of callousness or wanting to see a man die in prison but for the reason which now seems very, very obvious – that this whole matter could and should have been resolved through due process of law. By going outside that process, MacAskill inevitably created the utterly unsatisfactory confusion which now exists.

A man is innocent till he is proven guilty. Equally, if we are to have respect for our system of law and justice, once found guilty, he retains that status until proven innocent to the satisfaction of a court. Everything else is assertion and special pleading. You cannot determine people’s guilt or innocence by opinion poll – but that is in effect the reality which has been fostered.

Clearly, Mr Ashton believes passionately in Megrahi’s innocence but that is not something that can be determined by politicians or authors. It should have been confirmed or denied through a process of appeal; a course of action which is no longer available. The question of why it was terminated – to the astonishment of Megrahi’s own lawyer, we are told – is now the crucial missing link.

So what should MSPs do? Quite simply, they should assert themselves. There are myriad Holyrood committees or else they should set up a special one. They should question under oath not only MacAskill but every one of their officials who was involved in meetings with the delegation from Gaddafi’s Libya. They should demand to see every piece of paper and every e-mail surrounding the Scottish Government’s dealings with the Megrahi case. Who is there to protect by concealment?

The Gaddafi regime is gone – and if there are now no secrets in Tripoli there should be none in Edinburgh.

If such a transparent process produces no evidence to support Megrahi’s claims then the picture will become much clearer. MacAskill will, in his own terms, be exonerated. Many people will still think it was wrong to release Megrahi while others will continue to agree with him, reinforced by the absence of evidence to suggest any ulterior motive or conspiracy theories.

If the testimonies and the paper trail point in a different direction, then so be it. The wider questions raised by Mr Ashton and others will take on a new credibility and will themselves demand investigation. What everyone should be seeking in this matter is the truth and not its concealment. Elected parliamentarians should be the spearhead of that ambition, rather than acting as a political shield against it.

As a society, we owe it to the victims of Lockerbie to get as close to that truth as possible – an obligation that is not diminished by the passage of time. The Court of Appeal would have been by far the best place for the completion of that process. We were denied that outcome. The questions are – why and by whom?