 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 4 - 10 May 2000 Issue No. 480 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 4 - 10 May 2000 Issue No. 480
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Who's guilty?
By Rasha SaadAlthough the verdict in the trial of two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie bombing will determine the culpability or innocence of the accused, it will raise many questions about the relations between the country from which they hail and the countries pushing for the trial.
How would the US and Britain -- which pushed the UN Security Council to impose an air and arms embargo on Libya in 1992 for its alleged involvement in the Lockerbie bombing -- react if the defendants were found not guilty? What would be the future of US-led sanctions against other countries if the charges were found to be based merely on unsubstantiated suspicions? Conversely, how would the world's superpower react if Libya's revolutionary leader Muammar Gaddafi was found to have had a part in the Lockerbie bombing?
Scheduled to have opened yesterday at Camp Zeist, a former US military base in the Netherlands, the trial of Abdel-Basset Al-Megrahi and Lamine Khalifa, who are accused of blowing up a PanAm airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 killing 270 people, will be conducted before Scottish judges.
Shortly after the two Lockerbie suspects were handed over to the Netherlands for trial on the basis of a South African-Saudi deal brokered with the US and Britain last year, Gaddafi vowed that in the event that the accused are proven innocent, Libya will ask for an apology and compensation from the US for the damage inflicted on his country due to seven years of sanctions.
Libya estimated its direct losses at a total of $33 billion. It also said in a letter to the UN last month that the impact of the sanctions is still being felt despite their suspension and it will take many years to overcome their consequences.
When sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992, the United States and Britain insisted that the trial of suspects in the Lockerbie bombing should take place in one of the two countries. Libya rejected handing over its citizens and insisted on a trial in a neutral country. Following African, Arab and international pressure, the United States and Britain agreed that the two suspects could be tried in the Netherlands by a Scottish court.
Last week, the Scottish court rejected a bid by the prosecution to postpone the trial for eight weeks to enable them to study undisclosed details about the defence's evidence and witnesses. Lord Sutherland, the presiding judge in the case, noted that "the accused have been in custody for 467 days, which is unprecedented in Scottish legal history," and said the trial should open as scheduled.
Khalifa (top) and Al-Megrahi, the two Libyans standing trial at Camp Zeist for bombing the PanAm aircraft over Lockerbie
(photos: AP)
The complex trial has already been delayed twice, including a three-month postponement made at the request of the defence lawyers who said they needed more time to prepare their case.
The two Libyans are charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder and a breach of the 1982 Aviation Security Act. The charges are alternative; meaning the accused cannot be convicted of more than one. Of these, the first and third counts carry mandatory life sentences.
More than 1,000 witnesses are on the prosecution's list, although it is possible that not all of them will be asked to testify. The defence is expected to have 124 witnesses. A ruling by the judges may be unanimous or by a majority of two to one.
Three verdicts are possible; guilty, in which case the suspects will be sent to a Scottish prison; not guilty, meaning they are allowed to return home; not proven, which is effectively the same as an acquittal, but is not a ringing endorsement of innocence.
Defence lawyers said they will argue that others were responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy. "This special defence involves naming two organisations and 10 individuals," William Taylor, Al-Megrahi's lawyer, told news agencies. He added that witnesses to be called included US agents involved in a lengthy investigation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). The PFLP-GC was named as an organisation that might have carried out the bombing in retaliation for the US shooting down of an Iran airliner over the Persian Gulf on a routine flight to Saudi Arabia, killing all 290 people on board. Iran was also cited as perhaps having executed the Lockerbie bombing.
In recent months there have been several reports in the Western press suggesting that the two Libyan suspects are likely to be proven innocent. Perhaps the startling resignation of the former top Scottish prosecutor, Lord Hardie, was one of the main reasons behind these assumptions. Hardie's resignation raised doubts about whether the British and US governments have put together a solid case against the men. The prosecution's request last week for a further postponement of the trial added to speculation that the US-British side might not have a strong case.
Media reports have suggested the prosecution's case was unravelling after a lead witness was reported to have said his original testimony was inaccurate and key evidence was flawed.
Lord Hardie was reported to have failed to convince lawyers representing the Libyan side that he could withdraw the charges against their clients in return for a "not proven" verdict. The lawyers insisted on proving the innocence of their clients. Hardie was believed to have offered this deal in the absence of clear-cut evidence to prove the charges.
