Lawyers acting on behalf of Prime Mininster Najib Razak said today that they would seek a “second opinion” from legal experts before advising their client on what to do next on the matter of deciding whether or not to sue The Wall Street Journal and its parent, Dow Jones & Co.
Hafarizam Wan Harun, Najib’s lawyer, told Ida Lim of The Malay Mail Online that he had met with his client yesterday, and despite the added step of seeking more feedback, did not rule out the possiblity of Najib eventually filing a lawsuit against the WSJ.
“I have been instructed by my client to seek further advice from legal experts both within and outside Malaysia as to appropriate action to be taken against WSJ.
“My instructions are to further look into this matter — in view of the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) revelation and also the Wall Street Journal’s avoidance of taking a stand whether it is 1MDB or not,” he said outside the Kuala Lumpur courthouse today.
Yesterday, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission stated that the RM2.6 billion transferred into the personal bank accounts in Najib’s name in 2013 was not from 1MDB, but rather was a donation from a source in the Middle East, but stopped short of identifying who the donor or donors were.
On July 2, the WSJ published an article alleging that USD700 million (RM2.6 billion) was transferred into Najib’s personal AmBank accounts two months before the 13th General Elections in 2013.
Najib had dismissed the article as part of an attempt to force him to resign from the posts of Prime Minister and UMNO president, and named former PM Dr Mahathir Moahamad as being in league with the foreign conspirators out to oust him.
According to Hafarizam, the WSJ in its July 21 reply to a letter of inquiry from Najib’s legal team asking for clarification on whether or not the newspaper alleged Najib got the money from 1MDB, “studiously avoided” saying if Najib did one way or another.
In its reply, the WSJ said that it stood by the contents of its article, and that no further explanation was deemed necessary to clarify itself.
“After 14 days of that letter being sent, they came and said it is as it stands in the article. In other words, they are not saying whether it is 1MDB or not, leaving it up to me to take a stand whether it is 1MDB or not,” Hafarizam said.
Reader Interactions