PM 'did not want Megrahi to die in Britain'
As Gaddafi celebrates 40 years' rule in Libya, a new political storm rages over Lockerbie bomber
AP
Secure behind bullet-proof glass, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi watches the 40th anniversary parade in Tripoli yesterday
Libyan officials were secretly told that Gordon Brown wanted the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to return home rather than have him die on British soil.
The message was conveyed by a former Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell after the Libyans had warned that Megrahi's death in a Scottish prison would have a "catastrophic" impact on relations between the two countries.
The revelation was contained in a pile of documents released yesterday by the UK and Scottish governments in an attempt to prove that no deal was struck to return Megrahi in exchange for Libyan oil. But it increased the pressure on the Prime Minister to end his two-week silence on whether he supported the release of the terminally ill prisoner. The disclosure was a new setback for Mr Brown who had hoped that the cascade of documents would put an end to the damaging controversy.
David Cameron, the Tory leader, accused Mr Brown of "double dealing" over Megrahi's fate because the US government believed it had a firm promise that the convicted bomber would serve the whole of his life sentence in Scotland.
The documents also disclosed that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, warned it would not be "necessary or sensible" to risk damaging relations with Libya by insisting on Megrahi's exclusion from a prisoner transfer deal.
They showed Mr Straw raised the alarm with Edinburgh over the prisoner's failing health nine months before his release. Reports from Libya yesterday claim Megrahi is now close to death
And the documents reveal that the Foreign Office denied the US government had been given a binding promise that Megrahi would remain in a Scottish jail for life.
The most damning revelation comes in a note of a meeting between Scottish and Libyan officials six months ago, in which Libya's Minister for Europe, Abdulati al-Obidi, claimed Mr Brown and the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, backed the prisoner's return home.
According to notes released by the Scottish government, Libya was given the reassurance in Tripoli by Mr Rammell in February. The note said: "Mr Obidi confirmed that he had reiterated to Mr Rammell that the death of Mr Megrahi in a Scottish prison would have catastrophic effects for the relationship between Libya and the UK. Mr Alobidi went on to say that Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish ministers."
There was silence from Downing Street last night, while a brief statement from Mr Rammell, now a Defence minister, failed to deny the Libyan claim. He only said: "Neither the Libyans or the Scottish Executive were left in any doubt throughout this entire process that this was a decision for the Scottish Executive over which the UK Government sought no influence.
"I made it clear in all my dealings with the Libyans that the decision around Megrahi was exclusively one for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Executive alone."
Papers released by the Ministry of Justice showed the Government changed its mind over the question of transferring Megrahi into Libyan custody between July and December 2007.
During these same months BP was waiting for the Libyan government to ratify the biggest oil exploration deal in the company's history, which was drawn up in May of that year and finally sealed in February 2008.
Explaining his change of heart in a letter to Mr Salmond that month, Mr Straw cited "national interests" and stressed the importance of bringing Libya back into the international community. He wrote: "I don't believe it is necessary or sensible to risk damaging our wide-ranging and beneficial relationship with Libya by inserting a specific exclusion into the PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]."
The papers also show that when the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, received a formal request from the Libyans last May to transfer Megrahi, one of his first actions was to consult the US government. Washington strongly objected and claimed that Britain had promised in 1999 when Megrahi was first handed over by Col Gaddafi that if convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.
Mr MacAskill wrote to the Foreign Office asking to see all the relevant documents, but it refused. A Foreign Office minister, Ivan Lewis, told him: "While the US pressed the UK to provide a definitive commitment on the future imprisonment of the Lockerbie accused, the UK government of the day declined to do this on the grounds that it did not wish to bind the hands of future governments.
"The then UK government could equally not rule out the possibility that our relations with Libya may one day change."
Both the UK and Scottish governments stressed yesterday that the tortuous negotiations over the prisoner transfer were academic because Megrahi, who is suffering advanced prostate cancer, was not transferred but released on compassionate grounds.
The new evidence: What it shows
"Libya agreed prior to Mr al-Megrahi's trial that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bomb would serve their sentence in Scotland. We have reminded them of this and made clear... that, for this reason, any Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya could not cover Mr Megrahi."
Letter from Lord Falconer to Alex Salmond, 22 June 2007
"I understand you would prefer that the terms of any Agreement with Libya should specifically exclude al-Megrahi... I have set out below the ways this could be achieved."
Letter from Jack Straw to Kenny MacAskill, 26 July 2007
What the letters show As the UK was negotiating a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya, both Jack Straw and his predecessor, Lord Falconer, agreed with the SNP that it should never apply to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
"The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and... I have agreed that in this instance the PTS should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Letter from Jack Straw to Kenny MacAskill, 19 December 2007
"I do not believe that it is necessary, or sensible, to risk damaging our wide- ranging and beneficial relationship with Libya by inserting a specific exclusion into the PTA."
Letter from Jack Straw to Alex Salmond, 11 February 2008
What the letters show Jack Straw changed his mind in the second half of 2007, making it clear to SNP leaders that this was driven by political considerations.
"Mr Obidi indicated that ... it would be a major problem should Mr Megrahi die in prison, and would be viewed as a form of death sentence."
Note of meeting between Libyan and Scottish officials, 18 November 2008
"Libyan concerns for Megrahi's health and possible return to Libya remain..."
Letter from Jack Straw to Alex Salmond, 21 November 2008
What the letters show The PTA was signed on 17 November 2008, and immediately the Libyans were threatening trouble if Megrahi died in prison.
"Mr al-Obidi spoke of Mr Bill Rammell's (minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office) visit to Tripoli in February ... Mr al-Obidi confirmed that he had reiterated to Mr Rammell that the death of Mr Megrahi in a Scottish prison would have catastrophic effects for the relationship between Libya and the UK. Mr al-Obidi went on to say that Mr Rammell had stated neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison..."
Note of meeting between the Scottish government and a Libyan delegation, 12 March 2009
What the document shows This is the first evidence to substantiate that Gordon Brown and David Miliband wanted Megrahi returned to Libya.
"I have spoken to the US Attorney General... Representations were made to me about the continuing effect of agreements that were reached among the US, UK and Libyan governments through the United Nations prior to the surrender of the accused for trial..."
Letter from Kenny MacAskill to David Miliband, July 2009
What the letter shows Having had a formal application from the Libyan government for Megrahi's transfer, Mr MacAskill consulted the US government, who claimed it would break a promise made by the British in 1999.
"While the US pressed the UK to provide a definitive commitment on the future imprisonment of the Lockerbie accused, the UK government of the day declined to do this... I hope on this basis that you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application."
Letter from Ivan Lewis, a Foreign Office minister, to Kenny MacAskill, 3 August 2009
What the letter shows The Foreign Office's version of events is the US asked for that promise but was not given it.
Megrahi: The unanswered questions
* Why has Gordon Brown – not usually reluctant to condemn decisions by the SNP administration in Edinburgh – constantly refused to give his view on the wisdom of releasing Megrahi?
* How did London and Edinburgh decide which were the "relevant" papers relating to the case? What information was contained in other documents?
* The first document released yesterday over Megrahi's fate dated from the summer of 2007. What discussions took place between 2004 – when Tony Blair first met Col Gaddafi – and then?
* What did Britain and Libya say to each other in official discussions about Megrahi? Were notes taken?
* What were the factors that persuaded Jack Straw to change his mind over Megrahi in the "national interest"?
* What was Jack Straw referring to when he warned that "the wider negotiations with the Libyans are at a critical stage"? Was it a reference to talks with BP over its return to the country?
* Did Kenny MacAskill only take into account the state of the prisoner's health when approving his release? How widely did he consult over the prisoner's condition?
* How did the US government gain the impression that Megrahi would spend his life in jail in Scotland? Were ministers saying one thing to Washington and another to Tripoli?
* Did Jack Straw's warning about the dire state of Megrahi's health influence Kenny MacAskill?
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
Seriously, for whatever reason, having this inhuman beast die in Scotland, or under British rules would have been a propaganda feast for the peoples that violently revolt over cartoons!
It served its sentence in the jail, it is a dead shell now. Better it not be made into a martyr.
I hate to go here, but the results of the Danish cartoons, (out of countrol riots and deaths all over europe), are evidence that you cannot dare tick off your real masters. Your sharia courts are proof of who the real masters are.
The only place those cartoons were published that did not produce death, was America. A free populace with the right to bear arms kept that from happening here.
Arm your people, and take back your country.
Until then, these are the safety measures, (letting the beast go), to which you must adhere.
It defineatly was for "humanitarian" reasons, but not for it. Saving your citizens from out of control rioters with guaranteed deaths due to your inability to defend your own country.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Until I go and give "people throughout the world" reason to loathe my existence, I worry not what people think of me
O that's right, I forgot, Bush did it.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
The majority of Americans are sick and tired of hearing the rantings of the teabaggers/conservative right. Go back and watch some more Faux News and Glenn Beck or better yet - educate yourself, read some accurate history of the US and the world and stop with the "socialist" bit - it's getting old and worn.
If you think it's getting old, that is just what they want you to think, so they can roll over your apathetic body.
I would love it if just once, one of you libs could give examples of "faux" news on FOX. FOX is beating all other networks because they are lying, right?
Or is it because, unlike you, everyone else is just too stupid to realize it, right?
If you see no socialism in this governments actions, (health care), or facism, (GM and Chrysler), you need to look more carefully, but I think you want the destruction of the US capitalist system.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/pl
It is surely time for the big push to get rid of him. So far 70,000 people want him out, which is more than 3 times more than voted for him.
Did Gordon Brown want the Libyan released????
Even if it was the wrong decision, which I am not saying it is necessarily, at least have the courage to give a true account. Rather than it being dragged out piece by piece.
Such a lack of truth means that the government cannot be trusted at any level and must therefore put itself up for re-election.
Even the raving loony party would be better than this bunch of self interested, self indulgent, power grasping cowards.
By Andy McSmith and Nigel Morris
I agree with Mr. Brown
The burila costs are very high in UK and the tax and oil going up is too much for anyone to have in his bed
What I am surprised is, UK is upset about the LAW of Scots? Do they prove anything besides shouting?
IS SCOTLAND A PART OR BROWN OR DAVIDE(David) CAMERON?
The plane dived in the land; they did not sleep for nights I said this before http://opinion.independentminds.livejou
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Pathetic. Where is the crime in the UK gov expressing a view? There is no crime, nothing, just the ever spreading British disease (mental illness) of "people" who wish to loath ourselves over anything and everything regardless of reality and certainly only applying these mentalist "standards" to ourselves and never to others.
Why not just hate ourselves for the simple reason we want to, state it honestly so people can see this aberration for what it is, instead of making up these never ending piles of nothing passing off as journalism which it is not. It is witch hunting rabble rousing propaganda. It sells though, big time, to the mentally ill masses in their rich yet still strangely empty lives (no one to blame you see except yourself hence the need for mental illness to "justify" how you feel)
2. The SNP is DEFINITELY not the Labour Party
3. Alex Salmond is not Gordon Brown
4. Kenny MacAskill is not Jack Straw
5. Compassionate release is not a Prisoner Transfer Agreement
6. The Scottish judicial system is not the English judicial system
7. A Scottish quasi-judicial process is not UK foreign policy
a. UK government ministers stated that they did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.
b. UK government ministers changed their position on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement to include Megrahi.
c. The Scottish justice minister following due process rejected the use of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
d. The Scottish justice minister following due process accepted prisoner release on compassionate grounds.
Q. Which of the above does the English media don't get?
A. All of it!
What can be said in defense of the UK media? Nothing I say. They reflect you, dear reader, for it is you who they "serve" and your self loathing mental illness.
Britain used to be a great country but, like a fish, it is rotting from the head, from inside of individual minds. The UK media promotes and glorifies our decline. They need failure and human misery as it is their oxygen
The question is, "Did Brown interfere."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-turs
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/t
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/t
The English think their parliament has more power than it does.
And the US can't hold the Scots to blame, so they blame the UK.
But really, in the USA this is yesterday's news.
It has gotten around about how they overlook their own war crimes, their own terrorists.
They don't want My Lai brought up.
So they mostly want to forget the whole thing.
The Scottish Government acted in a humanitrian fashion in releasing him at the same time acknowledging that his release would be politically expedient, building bridges with a section of the world that has become alieniated. Also the Scottish Government realised that it would be commercially expedient for British business interests and this was no doubt of interest to London as well, and the British public as a whole. Hence the truth about Brown wanting his release too.
What is needed is the truth to be uncovered surrounding Lockerbie itself, although the Americans have already demonstrated their desperation to keep the truth covered and to uphold the unsafe conviction of Al Megrahi. It is something that the Scottish Government could and should be pushing for as a matter of urgency, on behalf of the victims' families and the wider public.
a) Should this guy have been released
b) Are our government being straight and honest to the electorate and other countries
a) Should he have been released ?
Different people will have different attitudes to this. It will surprise nobody that the relatives of the victims feel strongly, that the US feels strongly, etc. (nothing right or wrong with this). I think there is probably no "right" answer and my own opinion would just contribute to the ongoing poll (the "Oh yes he should, Oh no he shouldn't" - which will make no difference to anybody as there is no way he is going back to prison in Scotland now).
b) Our Government
Is the more important question as it seems they are saying one thing to some, something different to others and saying nothing to those they are supposedly represent !! and it is those who they represent who are the ones they really should be open with. There is no excuse for Brown's secrecy on this. e should tell us what he is doing in our name. the problem comes in that this would then reveal how "two faced" he has been and would upset many - so for political reasons he is keeping his mouth shut. He should remember his job is to represent the electorate and he is accountable to us and at the moment he is acting as a dictator.
He who is kind to the cruel will wind up being cruel to the kind.......
How can you expect a PM to take what he feels is a risk (rioting over the death of this monster in a jail cell) for an "Ally" that has snubbed you twice this year?
Coincidence? I think not.