Informer admits RUC role in Finucane murder
By Padraig MacDabhaid
| |
A fully independent public inquiry is now the only course available to
ensure the full circumstances surrounding the killing of Pat Finucane can
be revealed
|
Bairbre de Brún, Sinn Féin Assembly member for West Belfast and
spokesperson on policing, has said that ``a fully independent public inquiry
is now the only course available to ensure the full circumstances
surrounding the killing of Pat Finucane can be revealed''.
Her comments come after revelations made by ex-UDR man and former UDA
quartermaster William Alfred Stobie, from Forthriver Road, Belfast, that he
was an informer at the time of his involvement in the Finucane killing.
Stobie was charged on Thursday, 24 June with killing the Belfast solicitor
ten years ago. When Stobie was charged, he replied: ``Not guilty to the
charge you have put to me tonight. At the time, I was a police informer for
Special Branch. On the night of the death of Patrick Finucane, I informed
Special Branch on two occasions by telephone that a person was to be shot.
I did not know at that time the person who was to be shot''.
Stobie's lawyer added that his client had asked him ``to state that the
murky web of deceit and lies spun around this murder doesn't emanate from
him and he looks forward to the truth coming out at the inevitable trial at
Belfast crown court''.
That the RUC and its agents were involved in the slaying is not a new
accusation. However, the claims made by Stobie in court have implicated the
RUC as major players in the cover-up which followed the killing.
After Stobie's claims, it emerged that the RUC had dismissed evidence which
was published six years ago by the New York-based Lawyers Committee for
Human Rights, which linked an RUC agent to Finucane's murder. At the time
of publication, an RUC report on the new evidence came ``to the conclusion
that it does not merit detailed comment''.
Stobie alleges that he told his RUC Special Branch handlers of the UDA's
plans, once five days before the attack, the second on the evening of the
killing. He claims that he never knew Finucane was the target but claims
that he gave the RUC enough information and time to save Mr Finucane's
life. He says when he complained to his handlers about their inaction they
replied that ``he (Finucane) was just an IRA man''. After the attack, the RUC
made no attempt to seize the weapons used even though Stobie gave the
Special Branch detailed information about how the killers planned to get
rid of their guns.
Stobie also claims that the RUC conducted a campaign to scare him into
silence over the Finucane killing even going as far as to sabotage weapons
under his control in order to draw UDA suspicion on him. Eventually the RUC
planted guns in his flat in order to frame him on arms charges. At his
trial on the arms charges he instructed his lawyers to tell the Director of
Public Prosecutions that he would publicly reveal that he had given the
Special Branch warnings before Finucane was killed if they continued
proceedings against him - four months later the Crown prosecutor announced
that no evidence would be offered against Stobie and a ``not guilty'' verdict
was entered against him.
The claims made by Stobie are substantiated by the Lawyer Committee for
Human Rights publication, which was dismissed by both the RUC and the NIO.
The document, published in 1993, details the threats made against Finucane
by the RUC, explains the role of British army agent Brian Nelson in the
killing and then details the RUC connection.
According to the report, ``two independent sources told us that the RUC also
had a double agent in the UDA. They stated that they had learned from
loyalist sources that in late December 1988 or early January 1989, Brian
Nelson came to a UDA meeting and passed a file on Finucane to `R'. Those
present took the transfer of this file to mean that Finucane would be
killed. A week later, the double agent alerted his handlers in the RUC
Special Branch who were stationed at Castlereagh. About two weeks later,
`R' came to the agent and asked him for weapons, including a Browning. At
the next meeting with his handlers, the agent told them of R's request and
that he would be supplying the weapons in the next few days. In both
instances, the agent gave the information to his handlers on the assumption
that they would do something to prevent the murder from taking place''.
In Castlereagh interrogation centre, a group of UDA men were told by
mid-level RUC officers to forget about indiscriminate sectarian killings
and concentrate on three solicitors who they claimed were the ``brains
behind the IRA''.
That Stobie informed his handlers before Finucane was killed is also backed
up by the earlier publication. It states that ``according to another source,
the Special Branch had one last opportunity to prevent the killing just
hours before it occurred. On the day Finucane was murdered, an adjutant UFF
commander under R called the RUC's agent at about 3pm. This adjutant told R
to deliver the weapons to a nearby social club at 5pm, which he did. He
then called his Special Branch handlers; told them that he had handed over
the guns; and impressed upon them that he thought they would be used
quickly. By 7.30pm, Finucane was killed''.
All of this appears to back up the family of Pat Finucane, who assert that
only an independent public inquiry can attain the truth. After a meeting
with British Secretary of State Mowlam in June, the family released a
statement saying that ``a criminal investigation (no matter who carries it
out) will not be a public process and its sole function is to attempt to
secure criminal convictions and not to expose the truth''.
This again was echoed by Martin Finucane on the day that Stobie made his
revelation. According to Finucane: ``The fact that the person charged today
said that he was a paid agent of the RUC installed in the UDA group which
carried out the murder makes a full public judicial inquiry imperative so
that we can establish the full extent of the involvement of the RUC in the
murder of Pat Finucane... The eventual trial of Mr Stobie will not be an
adequate vehicle for establishing the full truth of the circumstances
surrounding the murder as has been proven by the trial of Brian Nelson,
when the truth was fudged and covered up by the authorities.''
Finucane concluded: ``It is abundantly clear that the arguments for a full
independent public judicial inquiry is overwhelming and should now be
established forthwith. Today's development verifies and bolsters our demand
for such an inquiry. Public concern over the case has reached such a level
that no other course of action can be acceptable.''
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)