Lama betul masa yang diambil oleh Peguam yang Najib arahkan kirim surat kepada The Wall Street Journal meminta pengesahan tentang artikel mengenai Najib dan 1MDB yang disiarkan mereka ini..
Wall Street Journal dalam laporannya mendakwa AS$700 juta (RM2.6 bilion) dari dana 1MDB telah didepositkan ke dalam akaun bank peribadi Najib.
Kalau tak silap 8hb lalu surat dikirim dan ianya menerima berbagai kritikan dari berbagai pihak dari sudut bahasa yang digunakan hingga tujuan surat dihantar.. baca surat itu di SINI
"Mereka tidak seperti dalam keadaan bersegera untuk memulakan tindakan saman fitnah terhadap WSJ," kata Fahri.
Peguam itu berkata, artikel yang disiarkan WSJ Jumaat lalu, mengenai sejumlah besar wang yang didepositkan ke dalam akaun bank Najib, berunsur fitnah dan surat tuntutan sepatutnya dihantar kepada penerbit berkenaan.
Peguam New Sin Yew berkata peguam yang layak menentukan sama ada sesuatu penerbitan itu berunsur fitnah atau sebaliknya.
"Ia bukan perkara biasa bagi peguam untuk mendapatkan penjelasan sebelum membuat keputusan memfailkan tuntutan di mahkamah. Hanya baca artikel itu dan putuskan sama ada perdana menteri difitnah atau tidak," katanya.
New berkata, surat kepada WSJ itu sama seperti meminta penerbit berkenaan membantu dalam membuat keputusan sama ada untuk memulakan tindakan undang-undang atau tidak.
"Ini satu surat yang pelik dan ia mendedahkan perdana menteri tidak pasti dengan pendiriannya," katanya.
Setelah hampir seminggu.. akhirnya Peguam yang diupah Najib itu menjawab dan dedahkan sebab surat itu dihantar...
Baca ni...
KUALA LUMPUR: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article was not clear on whether it was accusing Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak of taking funds from 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), said counsel Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun.
Mohd Hafarizam, whose law firm is acting for the Prime Minister, said the article was “neither here nor there”.
“The article is not clear on whether it is alleging that the money is from 1MDB or not.
“Why we sent a letter of clarification is because we want the WSJ to tell us what its position is.
“Once that position has been taken, then it is easier for me to advise my client.
“Otherwise, I will be bordering on conjecture.
“I would have to assume that it meant 1MDB or assume that it did not mean 1MDB.
“It would be rather difficult for me to advise my client if I am not sure what their position is,” he told reporters at the Jalan Duta court here yesterday.
Mohd Hafarizam, who was at the court for another case, said he had advised Najib that the WSJ article was unclear.
“And my client said, in view of that, can you write in and ask for a clarification?
“Yes, my law firm can say whether the article is defamatory or not but if I do wrongly give advice, then I am also subject to professional negligence.
“The first two paragraphs of the article seem to suggest that the money was from 1MDB but then, when you look further, it mentioned that the source is not known.”
He said his firm would seek Najib’s instructions once WSJ had stated its position on the matter.
“Only then, the letter of demand will be issued.
“And if they fail to apologise or retract, then we will see whether we need to file the writ action or not,” he said.
On criticism about the letter of clarification, which was leaked on social media, Mohd Hafarizam said this had been done before.
“I remember that a very senior lawyer, S.N Nair, who used to act for (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, once sent a letter of clarification as well – to ask the other side to take a position first before deciding on the next move,” he said.
On July 8, Najib’s lawyers had sent a letter of clarification to WSJ seeking an explanation over its July 3 article.
WSJ had published the article quoting an “unnamed investigator”, claiming that almost US$700mil (RM2.63bil) of 1MDB funds were channelled into Najib’s personal accounts.
The Prime Minister’s Office had responded by saying that the articles were “political sabotage” while 1MDB insisted that no funds had been transferred into Najib’s accounts ~ The Star Online
from Anak Sungai Derhaka http://ift.tt/1HvxV6W
Post a Comment
This blog needed you to understand the word spam - never spam on this blog, although i will not moderate all of it, but you will learn it yourself, educate yourself