THE position of the new National Transitional Council (NTC) in Libya has been consistent only in its inconsistencies in relation to the Lockerbie bombing.
Members have, at different junctures since the overthrow of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, spoken of extraditing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to the US, protecting him and harming him.
In September Libya's interim justice minister Mohammed al Alagi, responding to news of a request to co-operate with the ongoing investigation into the Lockerbie bombing, told a press conference in Tripoli: "The case is closed."
Days later the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said NTC chairman Abdul Jalil had already assured David Cameron that the new Libyan authorities will "co-operate with the UK" in all ongoing investigations.
Earlier this year Libyan interior minister, Fawzi Abdel A'al, said that no treaty exists for UK police to visit Libya. He added any agreement might depend on whether Britain answered questions about its past involvement with Gaddafi's regime.
The long-anticipated documents outlining the alleged truth about Lockerbie have, thus far, failed to materialise despite the end of the old regime. In their stead, in the bombed-out buildings left behind, members of Human Rights Watch have unearthed secrets about alleged UK involvement with the torturous practices of the former dictator.
The NTC is still in power but their inconsistent public statements hint at the less than rigid structures binding a fractured, tribal nation still finding its feet.
Megrahi's family no longer have the political and financial backing of the Gaddafi regime and are certainly now more isolated, but the lack of uniformity within the NTC could still work in their favour if they pursue plans to clear their family name.
John Ashton, a former member of Megrahi's defence team and the author of his official biography Megrahi: You Are My Jury, said: "The new regime in Libya does not speak with one voice on this and there may well be people within it who would encourage the family to pursue a new appeal through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article