Naveed Akram, 24, and his father Sajid Akram are both accused of being involved in planning the deadliest terror attack in Australia’s history. This tragedy happened at Bondi Beach and cost the lives of 15 swimmers. This incident has been the catalyst for a far-reaching and serious investigation by ASIO into its past assessments of both Naveed and Sajid Akram. The questions have brought to light significant intelligence failures that could have avoided this horror.
In 2019, ASIO evaluated Naveed Akram. They determined there was no evidence to indicate he was still a threat or any chance he could commit an act of violence. Sajid Akram, who is still in litigation, endured tremendous pressure from October 2019 through April 2020. This was because of his ties to a terror cell affiliated with the Islamic State group in Sydney. An examination of the recent attack demonstrates the complicated interplay between family connections and terrorist perpetration. These dynamics sharply contrast with the typical lone-wolf or organized cell attack.
Now, of course, Australian officials are feeling pressure to rethink their intelligence game. The Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese admitted an enormous blunder. He lamented that ASIO and other Australian agencies failed to connect important dots in the lead up to the Bondi attack. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke pointed to a significant shift in Naveed Akram’s risk profile over time. This dramatic change in dynamics begs the question of just how effective the existing monitoring systems are.
Investigating Intelligence Oversight
Bondi attack has raised urgent calls for inquiry While an internal investigation has resumed, as well as an independent external investigation, the goal of both is to reveal any further intersection between 2019 and the day of the attack. According to experts, there were almost certainly missed opportunities to identify unfolding threats from the Akram family.
Greg Barton, a counter-terrorism expert, noted that ASIO needs to be looking critically at its own failures in allowing for the radicalization of Naveed Akram to go undetected. He stated, “If somebody was paying attention, that would be … a dashboard of flashing red lights and bells. It looks like no one was watching that dashboard because they had fallen down the list of priorities.”
The Australian government is currently being asked whether or not enough resources were devoted to counter-terrorism measures. Former Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo suggested that a commission of inquiry should evaluate whether current frameworks are adequate to address rising threats, particularly anti-Semitism.
Mr. Albanese remarked on the necessity for a comprehensive retrospective analysis: “We need to look back at what happened in 2019 when this person was looked at, the assessment that was made.” He stressed the need to improve coordination among all Commonwealth and state agencies involved in the permitting process so that information flows more effectively.
The Akram Family’s Background
These connections showed that the Akram family’s violent extremist ideologies spread well beyond Australia. According to some reports, they made their way to Davao, a radical Islamist haven on the southern Philippines known as a cradle for extremism and terror. Authorities are probing claims that they were given military-style training while stationed there. This should raise major alarm bells for intelligence, law enforcement and security services. Further, they hardly benefit the Philippines’ capacity to monitor emerging threats, not when hundreds of thousands of Australians journey to the Philippines annually.
Barton went on to lament the shocking trend of Australian-born residents traveling abroad to seek out and align with extremist organizations. “Look at the numbers of Australian-born people who went to fight with or join the ISIS caliphate [last decade]. Really extraordinary, and that’s the tip of the iceberg,” he said.
Further complications related to tracking persons of interest who could travel outside the country to undergo radicalization present formidable challenges for intelligence communities. Mr. Taylor pointed out that assessments are often based on available information at a specific moment: “People are being assessed on the strength of what’s available in a moment and then prioritized and triaged in that space. Of course, people change.”
Future Measures and Recommendations
Investigations into the attack on Bondi are still ongoing. Questions still linger today on what led Naveed Akram to have such a radical shift in attitude and ideology. And advocates and researchers alike are pushing for a more preventive model of keeping track of people who, in the past, might have been rated as low-risk.
That Naveed may have been on a path leading back to extremist ideology is especially concerning. This is notable, especially after he’d recently succeeded in cutting ties with Islamic State ideology. Barton stated, “The question is: did he walk away from Islamic State extremism and come back to it after a few years because of somebody else? Or had he stayed that course and then his father been radicalised in the process?”
In light of these circumstances, Australian authorities need to change course immediately. For better agility, they need to radically change their intelligence frameworks to take on newer, rapidly changing threats. Minister Burke recognized there was a complete alteration to Naveed Akram’s risk profile. He conceded that it’s unclear what authorities should have been able to detect those changes throughout the decades.
