The Scottish Government has been dealt a further blow to its increasingly beleagured and enfeebled resistance to conduct an inquiry into the discredited Megrahi conviction by the Justice for Megrahi Committee, in their targeted response to the Government's rebuttal of their petition.

In a devastating and highly critical response, the group, whose members include architect of the Zeist arrangement Professor Robert Black QC, Dr Jim Swire, Father Patrick Keegans and Iain Mckie, deconstruct the Government's inconsistent stances and articulate the legal basis and imperative for conducting an inquiry, which the Government maintained it could not do, before conceding that in fact it could.

"This is an admission that the initial response was wrong in a number of important ways," the group said.

"The Scottish Government does have the power to initiate an inquiry and, under the Inquiries Act 2005, has the power to compel witnesses. The Scottish Government was in error in stating, ‘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.’

"The Scottish Government is being disingenuous in stating that, ‘there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government.’ This only means that certain issues might not be able to be fully investigated but clearly many would. As with all inquiries some evidence cannot be adduced for various reasons. This does not invalidate having an inquiry.

"It is difficult to understand these errors given the Crown Office and civil service assistance that was available to the Scottish Government. At best this points to grossly inaccurate research and at worst to a deliberate effort to muddy the waters."

The response goes on to detail withering criticism of the Government's refusal to acknowledge the doubts cast on Megrahi's conviction by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the "international media storm that has raged around all aspects of Lockerbie and Mr Megrahi’s release for over 20 years."

"Effectively, we are faced with a legal system that is unable to act, a Crown Office system that refuses to act and a political system apparently rendered incapable of acting," the group says.

"Despite this, and in the face of international clamour for action, the Scottish Government decides to sit on its hands and claim it can do nothing. We have a Scottish Government with the power and resources to mount an inquiry that could provide at least some of the answers and it chooses to fall back on well worn excuses and effectively abrogates responsibility for ascertaining the truth about one of the biggest terrorist outrage ever committed anywhere in the world.

"We believe that the issues under consideration are as much political as legal affecting as they do the freedom of the individual, openness and accountability in Government and the individual’s right to justice. Not one single argument presented by the Scottish Government in its statement of 7 January 2011 holds water or is salient to JFM’s request for an independent inquiry. JFM has effectively demonstrated that its position vis-à-vis the both Scottish Government’s powers to institute such and their executive responsibility to do so are proven.

"In circumstances where there is a perceived miscarriage of justice which has not been fully tested in law, and (see above discussion); where the executive accepts that it has adequate power to sanction the opening of an inquiry to address the situation; where the Scottish Government accepts that matter falls squarely under the jurisdiction of Scotland; where, given the new absolute power bestowed upon the judiciary in Scotland to accept or reject hearing appeals in the interest of justice, it appears almost certain that any application to reopen Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal will be rejected; where no declared cooperation from either Her Majesty’s Government or the UN is forthcoming (in fact, quite the opposite in the context of HMG), what alternative resolution to an independent inquiry held under the auspices of the Scottish Government is offered?

"In the final analysis the Scottish Government has a duty to intervene where our justice system might have knowingly or unknowingly allowed a miscarriage of justice to occur and no other machinery exists for its resolution."

The response can be read in full, here.