ABC airs former Asio agent’s claims that Bondi shooters were radicalised years ago, despite agency’s criticism | Bondi beach terror attack

The ABC’s Four Corners has broadcast claims by a former undercover agent that father and son terrorists Sajid and Naveed Akram were showing signs of being radicalised years before they killed 15 people at Bondi beach.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) assessed Naveed, then 17, over his alleged associations with individuals involved in a Islamic State cell in 2019, but later concluded he was not an ongoing threat.

The Four Corners investigation into the pair aired on Monday night, despite a highly unusual and pre-emptive claim by Asio that the episode contained “significant errors of fact”. Asio had determined the program’s content based on detailed questions sent by the ABC ahead of broadcast.

“If the ABC chooses to publish claims it cannot substantiate – particularly ones it has been told are untrue – we will reserve our right to take further action,” Asio said in statement published on Sunday night.

The ABC confirmed it had not had any contact from Asio since the broadcast and had received no legal threats. Asio has been approached for comment.

The ABC’s managing director, Hugh Marks, will appear before Senate estimates on Tuesday, where the intervention of Asio ahead of an ABC program was expected to be raised.

During Monday night’s program, the former agent, known as “Marcus”, claimed that during his time working undercover as a radical cleric he provided Asio with a detailed account of how Naveed associated with an Islamic State cell. Asio has rejected his statements as “unsubstantiated”.

The ABC reported that as a teenager Naveed associated with members of a terror cell and acolytes of radical cleric Wisam Haddad.

“What happened on Bondi beach was a result of a set of errors and a disregard for information,” Marcus told the ABC.

“How [could] someone like this [have] fled out of Asio and Australian authorities’ radar?”

Marcus told the program that Sajid had voiced support for IS when the pair met in 2019, while the ABC also reported that the father had also expressed admiration for a leading al-Qaida propagandist to another man.

“After this conversation, I thought Sajid was more extremist than his son,” Marcus said of the 2019 meeting.

A senior counter-terrorism official with close knowledge of the current investigation told the ABC that Sajid may have already been radicalised when he met with the agency to discuss his son as part of its assessment.

Sajid was shot dead by police during the 14 December attack. Naveed is in custody, charged with 59 offences.

Prior to the program airing, Asio described Marcus – who has since left Australia after a falling out with the agency and is in hiding – as an unreliable and disgruntled source.

“The claims Four Corners is making were investigated at the time and found to be unsubstantiated,” Asio said.

Asio claimed Marcus “misidentified Naveed Akram” – a claim he denies.

“I strongly deny Asio’s allegation that I ever misidentified Naveed Akram, someone I met on a regular, face-to-face basis over many years,” Marcus said.

Marcus told the program he was willing to give evidence to a royal commission that he reported to Asio that both father and son supported IS.

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, announced a federal royal commission last month to examine the prevalence of antisemitism, how law enforcement will respond to antisemitism, the circumstances surrounding the alleged Bondi attack and strengthening social cohesion.

Prior to the report’s broadcast, reporter Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop said his seven-week investigation uncovered new information about the years leading up to the attack and asked whether Asio’s assessment of Naveed not being a threat was the “right call”.

On Tuesday, independent MP Andrew Wilkie said Four Corners had a reputation for reliability and quality journalism. But he said he also respects Mike Burgess, the director general of Asio, so the truth of the allegations remains an “open question”.

The royal commission will be able to examine the “competing claims and counter claims”, he told ABC News Breakfast.