Is Hafarizam credible and capable to represent Najib in WSJ lawsuit?

Posted by The Unspinners

Dow Jones & Company Inc, the owner of Wall Street Journal (WSJ), has replied to the ultimatum given by Najib Tun Razak's lawyers with regard to the 'allegations' it published in the newspaper earlier this month.

Whether Dow Jones is standing by WSJ or nor, the 'thing' now is how good and responsive the prime minister's legal team, namely Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak Advocates & Solicitors is in stamping on its opponent.

I have heard suggestions for Najib to seek assistance from other legal experts since the current one 'did not perform well'.

Dow Jones has stated that it is not necessary for it to clarify if two articles published by the Wall Street Journal were intended to accuse Najib Tun Razak of misappropriating 1Malaysia Development Berhad  funds.

In a reply to the Prime Minister’s lawyers, the company which owns WSJ, said the report published on July 2 and a subsequent opinion piece on July 6 were self-explanatory as they “were based on available facts”.

    “In your letter, you ‘seek confirmation as to whether it is [our] position as taken in [The News Article and The Opinion] that [your] Client misappropriated nearly US$700mil belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad’.

    “We believe your request is unnecessary as The News Article and The Opinion speak for themselves,” Dow Jones’ counsel and chief compliance officer Jason P. Conti was quoted as saying in a letter which was sighted by the Malay Mail Online.

The company was responding to a request for confirmation from Najib’s lawyers, Hafarizam (pic) Wan & Aisha Mubarak Advocates & Solicitors, in a letter dated July 8.

The letter from Najib’s law firm had urged Dow Jones to state its position on the articles as they collectively suggested that WSJ was unsure of the original source of the money and what happened to it, yet attempted to create an impression that the Prime Minister was guilty of misappropriating the US$700mil (RM2.6bil).

However, Conti noted that the July 2 article, titled “Malaysia leader’s accounts probed”, had expressly noted that the money trail did not indicate how the funds were spent.

The lawyer also pointed out that the July 2 piece was a news report while the July 6 article, titled “Scandal in Malaysia” was an opinion piece that was based upon facts which had emerged.

    “As a result, it is quite clear the news article is a fair and accurate summary of current events, and the opinion includes reasonable commentary based on those facts. 

    “Any suggestion otherwise is misplaced and baseless,” Conti was quoted as saying.

He added that the US publisher had yet to appoint legal representatives in Malaysia as legal action had yet to be taken against WSJ for its reports.

“If and when you do so, we will consider the appointment of appropriate solicitors in Malaysia,” Conti wrote in the letter, which reached Najib’s lawyers on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister’s law firm had given Dow Jones a 14-day deadline to confirm its accusations against their client, instead of issuing the usual letter of demand.

My opinion is, Najib shouldn't be banking too much hope on his legal team. Mr PM is against an international-class 'abominable' legal team who could buy alibi and create proof to win their case... don't you think so, Hafarizam?

Just Read

Dato Najib ... get a winning lawyer and not get Malaysia shamed.