As a result of senior defectors from the Gaddafi regime claiming that the former leader was involved in the Lockerbie bombing, prosecutor’s have approached the Libyan interim government to help uncover new evidence about the atrocity.  Of course, such specific revelations shouldn’t be taken too seriously as, obviously, these defectors will be eager to please the UK government and secure a place in the new interim government. Interestingly, however, revelations are also likely to come to light about the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al Megrahi.  The Guardian reports:

Legal sources with knowledge of the case pointed out that the Crown Office was also braced for the publication in the next few months of a report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stating that Megrahi may have been wrongly convicted.

The SCCRC’s new evidence led to Megrahi’s appeal, which was halted when he was released early after his prostate cancer became terminal. The Scottish government has promised legislation allowing the SCCRC’s report to be published.

The report will be censored to remove a secret intelligence report from another government – believed to be Germany – which raises significant doubts about the prosecution case against Megrahi. The then foreign secretary, David Miliband, issued a public interest immunity certificate banning its publication in 2008.

Whilst not often commented on in the media since the original prosecution, doubts have been raised in the past about the possible innocence of Megrahi for many years, not least by the late Paul Foot (a copy of his original investigation into the case can be read here).  Despite repeated requests from the British families of the victims for an inquiry, Prime Minister’s from Thatcher through to Brown have refused to do so.  Considering Lockerbie was the worst terrorist atrocity in British history, the refusal to conduct a full inquiry is rather bizarre.

Should the SCCRC’s report state that Megrahi may have been wrongly convicted (and it is still worth emphasising the ‘may’), the case for a full, wide-ranging public inquiry to establish (as much as possible) the facts of the atrocity will be stronger than ever.  It is unlikely, however, that David Cameron will allow such an inquiry to take place, particularly given how it may compromise the UK government.  Should he give in to the requests of the families, one can imagine any inquiry would be constructed along very narrow lines to ensure no embarrassment to the Conservative government of the time.  However, the families of the victims deserve to know the truth of that day and deserve to finally see justice served on those responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.