Lawyers representing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak are reluctant to file a suit against The Wall Street Journal regarding an article on the US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) allegedly found in Najib’s personal bank accounts.

The reason given is that Najib is not well-known in the US.

Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin and Mohd Hafarizam Harun said their client preferred filing the suit here where Najib is well-known.

They added that as Najib is domiciled in Malaysia, the suit should be filed here.

Firoz ( photo ) cited as an example a British case where a businessman from outside UK filed a suit there and won but the damages assessed was not much.

"The reason is the person is not known in the UK despite the defamation suit filed there."

"For this reason, the suit (against WSJ), if filed, would be here in Malaysia where he (Najib) is well-known," he said.

Asked what is hindering them from filing the suit against WSJ since vindication is important for the prime minister, Hafarizam said they needed to know whether the international finance paper based in New York wanted to invoke the Speech Act.

"Vindication is one thing, but getting damages is also important. If you asked Lim Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim, they were not only vindicated but they also obtained monetary damages," he said.

"We do not want this to become a paper judgment (worthless) when they invoke the Speech Act, making the action in this court here not enforceable over there."

Hafarizam said the damages to his client was not only in print but also in the story being put up on the internet and accessible to 180 countries.

He said the lawyers have stated that this was a defamation action, but the lawyers for WSJ did not want to state whether they are invoking the Speech Act.

Speech Act introduced during Obama's time

To questions that previous Malaysians had filed suit against WSJ and won, Firoz said the Speech Act then was not enforceable as it was only introduced during President Barack Obama's time.

"Hence, when it (the Speech Act) became enforceable in 2010, it ‎makes filing the suit to be a problem for other countries," he said.

WSJ had in July published two reports alleging US$700 million was deposited into Najib's personal accounts in AmIslamic Bank from 1MDB.

Hafarizam ( photo ) said he had wr‎itten to WSJ asking whether in their article it was suggesting the money came from 1MDB or otherwise.

However, he said, WSJ had responded vaguely ‎which is neither here nor there and "when we asked whether they would invoke the Speech Act, the WSJ said since we have not filed a cause of action, they cannot respond to our query".

Hafarizam had previously said a second letter was sent to WSJ and that he was waiting for a "yes" or "no" reply on whether the international financial daily would invoke the Speech Act, but they have not responded yet.

Following this, Firoz said, they have advised Najib to wait and see.