Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

One year after release of Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, questions about BP role

Convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi is expected to be fêted by Libya's Qaddafi as he marks one year since his release on compassionate medical grounds from the UK. Questions have risen about a possible BP role in pushing for the release.

(Page 2 of 2)

"It’s highly unlikely the Scots would devise this entirely on their own.... I think everyone was making it up as they went along, and claiming, ‘This is not my issue.’ ... The whole thing should have been lost in the fog of news, but it hasn’t been,” since Megrahi is alive, Stewart says.

Skip to next paragraph

Deal or no deal?

When Megrahi was released, Qaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam Qaddafi, said triumphantly that the act came out of a trade deal with the UK. The British Foreign Office issued a blistering rejoinder stating: “There is no deal. All decisions relating to Megrahi’s case have been exclusively for Scottish ministers, the Crown Office in Scotland, and the Scottish judicial authorities.”

BP, however, said last month, after a request by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to investigate, that it had been a matter of “public record” since 2007 that the company did push the British government to find a way to meet Libya’s demands on a prisoner release, though it said it did not discuss Megrahi in particular.

Yesterday, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted he visited Qaddafi this June, days after his spokesman denied he was an adviser to the Libyan leader, according to the British daily the Telegraph.

UK and Scottish authorities have declined a request by Congress to testify on the matter.

Request for whistleblowers

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have asked for UK “whistleblowers” to come forward who might link Megrahi’s release to BP’s deal. Four US senators from New York and New Jersey on Aug. 10 asked Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond for disclosure of Megrahi’s medical records.

Despite varying views on the wisdom and determinative nature of medical diagnoses in an era when “terminal” is often disputed, the issue is whether Scottish authorities in the office of MacAskill sought out or omitted a diagnosis that would potentially benefit BP.

The story has turned on British newspaper reports last May and again this month showing none of the four doctors that treated Megrahi for prostate cancer were consulted in the final report.

Rather, the diagnosis came from a nonspecialist who appears to have presented a “worst case” scenario that has since been recanted, most recently by cancer specialist Karol Sikora, one of three doctors providing an opinion for release.

Now Dr. Sikora says a panel of physicians working independently from Scottish government influence should have made the determination.

"In medicine we say 'Never say never and never say always,' because funny things happen. All you can do is give a statistical opinion," Sikora, the dean of the School of Medicine at Buckingham University, was quoted as telling Britain's Observer newspaper on Sunday. “I provided an opinion, others provided an opinion, and someone else let him out. That decision of compassionate release is nothing to do with me.”