Were there other suspects or accomplices in the Bondi Beach shooting?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Australian authorities say two men — a father and son identified in media as Sajid and Naveed Akram — were the only suspects in the Bondi Beach attack as of mid-December 2025; police have repeatedly stated they are not looking for a third person while investigators probe the pair’s overseas travel and digital records [1] [2]. Officials also caution that that assessment could change as they review devices, travel records and seized material from the scene, including alleged IEDs and IS paraphernalia found in a vehicle [2] [3].
1. Police: currently no evidence of additional shooters
Senior police and government briefings in the days after the massacre made a clear, public assertion: investigators were treating the attack as carried out by the two men and were “not looking for a third person,” a position repeated by New South Wales authorities and reported by outlets including The New York Times and Fox News [1] [2]. That official posture frames the investigation’s working hypothesis and has shaped immediate public messaging and security responses [1].
2. Officials keep door open — assessment could change as evidence is analysed
Law enforcement emphasised the provisional nature of that conclusion. AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett and other officials said early indicators point to an IS-inspired motive but warned the picture could change once digital devices, travel records and thousands of seized documents are examined, meaning potential accomplices or facilitators remain a live question for investigators [4] [2].
3. Travel to the southern Philippines fuels scrutiny of overseas links
Both suspects travelled to the Philippines in November and departed late that month, which has prompted co-ordination with Philippine authorities and focused inquiries into whether the trip involved training, contact with militants, or other facilitation — claims that Philippine officials currently regard as inconclusive and are still checking [5] [6]. Local reporting has noted the region visited has a history of Islamist militancy, but confirmation of any operational ties has not been reported [6].
4. Evidence seized at scene raises questions about possible support roles
Police have said they found two homemade IS flags and a suspected improvised explosive device linked to one of the suspects’ vehicles, along with multiple documents and devices seized for analysis [7] [3]. Authorities say those items will be scrutinised to establish planning, logistics and whether anyone else assisted in preparations — an investigative path that could change the number or nature of suspects if new links emerge [2].
5. Media identification vs. formal charges — an important distinction
National broadcasters and international outlets have identified the pair by name and described one as previously investigated for extremist associations and the other as a licensed firearms owner; police, however, had not released names early on and indicated that public reports can outpace formal charging and evidence disclosure [8] [7]. This gap underlines the difference between media reporting, preliminary investigative statements and prosecutable findings.
6. Why some outlets and analysts look for wider networks
Reports noting travel to a militant-prone region and references to “training” in some media have prompted speculation about external handlers or facilitators [9] [3]. Reuters and BBC pieces made clear investigators are probing that travel precisely because trips to areas with militant activity can be red flags — but both also stressed that Philippine authorities had no confirmed information about militant training as of their reporting [6] [9].
7. Competing narratives: lone-operation vs. organised plotting
Government sources emphasise a two-person operation absent wider accomplices at the moment [1]. Alternative narratives — advanced in some media and by observers because of the Philippines trip and materials found — argue the presence of flags, an IED and alleged overseas contact increase the plausibility of a broader facilitation network; however, current reporting shows those links remain unproven and under investigation [3] [6].
8. What to watch next — concrete milestones that could change the story
Key developments that would alter the “only two suspects” conclusion include: forensic analysis of seized devices showing communications with others; Philippine findings confirming training or contact with militants; formal charges or indictments alleging additional participants; or recovered financial or travel records linking third parties to planning [2] [6]. Until such evidence is publicly disclosed by police or prosecutors, reporting will necessarily balance official denials of a wider plot with the open investigative leads authorities themselves have flagged.
Limitations and sourcing note: This analysis uses media and official statements collected in the immediate aftermath; authorities explicitly warned their understanding was preliminary and subject to change as forensic and cross-border inquiries progress [4] [2]. Available sources do not mention any charged third-party accomplice as of these reports.