IMAGINE YOUR loved ones were on board the PanAm flight that was bombed and had crashed in Lockerbie in Scotland. You got a call that there were no survivors. You would be stunned. Your efforts will be to trace the guilty and bring them to justice. In the case in question a culprit was traced, tried and sentenced to life imprisonment. Frankly speaking, it should have been a death sentence. Lo and behold! The convict has been set free on compassionate grounds by the law secretary of Scotland on the grounds that he would die of terminal cancer in the next three months.

What would an individual whose loved ones were killed feel at the news of the convict walking free? Horror of horrors! The convict is given a hero's welcome in Libya, his home country and is received at the airport by the son of the dictator. By the way, the release of the convict coincides with the 40th anniversary of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi accession to power in Libya. Was the release of the convict orchestrated? Was Gaddafi canvassing for it? Of course, the bad boy Gaddafi has had an image makeover, but will a tiger's stripes really go away if washed with strong detergent? Be that as it may, now there are allegations that the Scottish government released the convict as part of a bigger economic deal that would benefit the United Kingdom.

It is rather disgraceful that a mass murderer is shown compassion for economic reasons. Won't this encourage acts of terrorism elsewhere in the world? It is time to ponder the all-important question: Justice for all means justice for the accused and for the complainant. The scales of justice do not tilt one way or the other. The weighing of evidence is not done after conviction but before it. World opinion is not in favour of showing compassion for a convict who has committed mass murder.