THE Scottish lawyer acting for the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing last night attempted to distance himself from the escalating political pressure surrounding the case.
Mr Alistair Duff said that he was not interested in the threat of further sanctions facing Libya if the British and American deal for a trial in The Hague was rejected by his clients.
He said: ''As far as I am concerned, I am representing two men accused of a crime. I am aware of the political situation and not oblivious to it, but I am not interested in getting Libya off the hook from sanctions.
''If they (the suspects) said to me they did not want to leave Libya for trial, then that is what I would be trying to achieve.''
Mr Duff is expected to fly to Tripoli to meet the accused and their Libyan lawyer, Dr Ibrahim Legwell, within the next month to establish if the deal is acceptable. Last night Libya said that it would respond today to the proposal.
The US and Britain yesterday introduced a United Nations Security Council resolution that would suspend sanctions against Libya once the suspects arrived in the Netherlands for trial.
However, a State Department official said later that, if Libya failed to hand over the two men for trial, Washington would seek to expand UN sanctions against Tripoli to include sales of oil.
After speaking with Dr Legwell by telephone yesterday, Mr Duff said that it was clear the deal had not been rejected out of hand. ''I got the impression that this matter was being treated with urgency (in Libya) and had to be sorted out quickly.''
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi was facing mounting pressure last night to accept the plan to try the two men suspected of the bombing before a Scottish court in The Netherlands.
The head of the Arab League said the plan was in line with ideas previously accepted by the Libyans for producing a resolution to the saga of almost 10 years. Esmat Abdel Meguid gave his verdict on the plan in a statement issued in Cairo after a briefing from Britain's Ambassador to Egypt, Mr David Blatherwick.
Abdel Meguid, who forwarded the proposals to Libya's foreign minister, said: ''The American-British proposal is compatible with the previous Arab suggestions, which Libya has accepted.''
Last night, South African president Nelson Mandela, a close ally of Colonel Gaddafi, welcomed the plan to prosecute the two men.
A statement issued by the president's office read: ''President Mandela is confident that (the plan) should lead to the resolution of this matter, knowing that Colonel Gaddafi shares his concern that this matter should have a just solution as soon as possible. President Mandela reiterates his concern that justice should be done in a way that avoids the humiliation of any party.''
Libyan intelligence officers Abdel Baset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah deny any involvement in the bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103, in which 270 people were killed on December 21, 1988.
They have refused to surrender for a trial in Scotland or the US but have agreed to a trial in a neutral country under Scots law with international judges, as opposed to the all-Scottish composition contained in Monday's announcement.
Mr Duff's comments came as families of the victims appealed for politicians to step aside and let the lawyers get on with the negotiations.
Colonel Gaddafi had previously said that it was the responsibility of the legal team to decide how the accused should stand trial. However, there has been widespread speculation that Gaddafi may not co-operate, in retaliation for last week's US air strikes against terrorists.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter, Flora, was a victim, acts as the official spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103, set up to represent the bereaved. He said: ''It would be a brave man who confronted Gaddafi over this but a foolish one who would insult him with the suggestion of reneging on his promise. I think it is time to give the lawyers some space and keep politics out of it.''
In a letter published in The Herald today, Dr Swire thanks the Lord Advocate, politicians, academics and lawyers who were involved in brokering the deal.
Letters Page 18
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