Justice for Megrahi (JFM) and its signatories wish to thank First Minister Salmond for devoting his consideration to the invitation to join their campaign. Albeit that he has declined offer, we accept his decision. However, the message delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the invitation raises more questions than it answers insofar as it comes across as confusing and contradictory.

Mr Salmond continues to maintain his stance that the Scottish Government is satisfied with the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction, thus setting himself squarely against the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in their referral of the case to the Court of Appeal. He does, however, state that he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the United Nations.

Further to this, according to the Scottish Government’s spokesman, despite confidence in the safety of the verdict, “there remain concerns on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.” If these “concerns” differ from those of JFM’s, what are they? JFM would very much like the Scottish Government to clarify which “concerns” it is alluding to.

Whilst we at JFM would be at one with Mr Salmond, assuming he truly believes in the necessity of an inquiry, we fail to understand why, if he is comfortable with the Zeist verdict, he is happy to endorse one held under the auspices of any institution, be it international or otherwise. This appears to indicate that he would be behind the establishment of an inquiry, preferably one conducted by a body that is at arms length from the Scottish Government, but will not take any active measures to bring it about. In our letter to Mr Salmond, we made it perfectly clear that we would afford Mr Salmond our wholehearted and undivided backing should he become proactive in the setting up of an inquiry. We stand by this. Words mean little in the political arena, it is action which counts.

Mr Salmond also consistently contends, as has been reiterated via the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the JFM invitation, that “the questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

With the greatest respect, JFM disputes this. The international nature of the event was not such an impediment when it came to trying Messrs al-Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist in the first instance, was it? What then is the obstruction now, when it comes to opening a Holyrood inquiry into the safety of a verdict reached under Scots Law?

At the risk of labouring the point:

· The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
· The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
· The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
· The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Outside of the UN, the authority best placed to open a Lockerbie inquiry is the Scottish Government. It is not only best placed in terms of its involvement in the tragedy, but also, as a consequence, in terms of the documents and other evidence which fall directly under Scottish jurisdiction.

Mr Salmond is fully aware of the fact that the General Assembly of the UN is seemingly not interested in setting up an inquiry and furthermore does not possess the necessary power of subpoena with which to obtain evidence from member states. Mr Salmond is equally aware that the only body with such a power is in fact the Security Council of the UN, and this body has ceased to deal with any and all matters relating to the Lockerbie incident (see Security Council binding resolution of 12th September 2003, which makes clear, in operative para 3, that it “hereby removes this item from the list of matters of which the Council is seized”).

JFM submits that it is misleading and inaccurate to say that Scotland does not possess the power or remit to open an inquiry into the actions of the Scottish judiciary and other Scottish institutions.

It was Mr Salmond’s party which, on coming to power in 2007, coined the expression The Scottish Government. We live in a parliamentary democracy, in which the people cede power to its elected representatives to act by proxy on their behalf to legislate for and manage the affairs of state, and moreover, ensure that its government maintains, in the case under scrutiny here, the highest standards of propriety in the process of administering justice through its judiciary. In this current exchange, it is becoming hard not to come to the conclusion that the government is serving the interests of the wishes of the Scottish judiciary and other bodies to protect themselves from the consequences of their own shortcomings. In so doing the Scottish Government is sacrificing the trust and confidence of the people in its judiciary in particular; a faith which is not blind and which requires to be nurtured at all costs.

JFM is at a loss to know how matters could be turned around in New York. We also suspect that Mr Salmond is too. Assuming the UN fail to be persuaded to take control of this question, why should it fall on the shoulders of others to investigate the conduct of a case which is fundamentally of concern and relevance to Scotland? It does fall within “the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government”, and the Scottish Government quite evidently does have both “the required power and authority” to deal with it.

When the Scottish National Party became the party of government in Scotland in 2007, it did so with a clean sheet on the issue of Lockerbie. Upon assuming office, Mr Salmond was clear and correct in expressing his outrage at ‘the deal in the desert’, when Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi signed the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). On that matter, he made strenuous and well-publicised efforts to defy the perceived arrogance of Westminster and succeeded in both asserting Scottish authority and cocking a snook at Mr Blair. He is now facing a considerable challenge on the issue of Lockerbie/Zeist. Neither Westminster nor Washington seem willing to look this particular beast in the eye, and increasingly the Scottish Government seems reluctant to do so. Nevertheless, Mr Salmond has demonstrated in the past that he has the resolve and is more than able to rise to the occasion. We are confident that he will do so again now.

Scotland is constrained by its constitution with regard to lobbying the UN independently of Westminster. If Mr Salmond is not going to take active measures to lobby Westminster to do so in New York on Scotland’s behalf, there is only one alternative: an open, full and comprehensive, public inquiry under the auspices of the Scottish Government.

JFM and its signatories seek clarification on the questions raised here resultant from the statement delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman. We list the questions below for Mr Salmond’s convenience.

As always, we thank the First Minister for his time and attention, and look forward to his response.

The questions:

- What are the wider concerns over the Lockerbie case as mentioned in the Scottish Government spokesman’s statement?
- Does the Scottish Government have the authority to set up inquiries?
- If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, under whose auspices was the 2003 inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, set up?
- If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is, therefore, the judiciary of Scotland sacrosanct and beyond the scrutiny of the people of Scotland, who pay for it?
- Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?
- Given that such a considerable quantity of the evidence required for such inquiry falls under Scottish jurisdiction, what precisely is preventing the Scottish Government from opening an inquiry into the evidence already available to it?


The Justice for Megrahi Committee:

Professor Robert Black QC
Mr Robert Forrester
Father Pat Keegans
Mr Iain McKie
Dr Jim Swire


The Signatories:

Ms Kate Adie
(Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).

Mr David Benson
(Actor and author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business’).

Mrs Jean Berkley
(Mother of Alistair Berkley, who was killed on flight 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph
(Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the architect of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and human rights commentator of international repute).

Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).

Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).

Mr Robert Forrester
(‘Justice for Megrahi’ committee member).

Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).

Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).

Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the Pan Am 103 incident).

Ms A. L. Kennedy
(Writer).

Mr Adam Larson
(Editor, writer and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).

Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).

Mr Charles Norrie
(Brother of Tony Norrie, who died aboard UT-772 over Niger on 19th September 1989).

Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger
(Author and campaigning human rights journalist of world renown).

Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of ‘The Firm’, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).

Mr James Robertson
(Author).

Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).

Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).

His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).