Latest twist in long-running saga
CHARGES against a third Lockerbie bombing suspect are the latest twist in a saga more than 30 years long.
The announcement from US authorities follows years of negotiations in the wake of the atrocity which cost 270 people their lives.
Abu Agila Mohammad Masud is the third Libyan to have been prosecuted in connection with the 1988 terrorist attack.
In November 1991, two intelligence officials – Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Lamen Fhimah – were indicted on 270 counts of murder, conspiracy to murder and violating Britain’s 1982 Aviation Security Act.
By August 1998, Britain and the US proposed trying the suspects in the Netherlands under Scots law, and in April the following year both men were formally charged with the bombing and taken into Dutch custody. The trial of Megrahi, 48, and Fhimah, 44, opened at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands in 2000.
In January 2001, Megrahi was found guilty of murder after the historic trial. However, his coaccused Fhimah was found not guilty.
A year later, Megrahi launched an appeal against the conviction, which failed. In 2003, he was told he must serve at least 27 years in jail after a change in the law meant his sentence could be increased.
In 2007, Kenny MacAskill was appointed Scottish justice secretary and Megrahi was granted a second appeal against his conviction. By October the following year, the Libyan’s lawyer revealed the 56-year-old had ‘advanced stage’ prostate cancer. Megrahi’s request to be freed on compassionate grounds in 2009 was granted.
Shortly afterwards, judges accepted an application by Megrahi to drop his second appeal. In 2014, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland affirmed his belief Megrahi was guilty and pledged to find his accomplices.
A year later, it was ruled victims’ relatives should not be allowed to pursue an appeal on Megrahi’s behalf. The same year prosecutors requested permission from Libya to interview two suspects over the bombing.
In 2017, Megrahi’s family lodged a new bid to appeal against his conviction,.
Earlier this year, the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission referred the case to the High Court of Justiciary after concluding a miscarriage of justice may have occurred by reason of ‘ unreasonable verdict’ and ‘non-disclosure’.