Background
Abdulghani Albaf, known as Sheikh Albaf, was the principal of New Madinah College, a registered non-government school. Following media inquiries after the December 2025 Bondi Beach terrorist attack, the NSW Education Standards Authority investigated social-media posts in which Albaf expressed political opinions using language that he accepted was intemperate. The College conducted its own process, concluded that he remained a fit and proper person, and placed him on six months’ probation.
A NESA senior inspector prepared an undisclosed report rejecting the College’s conclusion. On 17 February 2026, NESA’s Registration and Accreditation Committee determined that Albaf was not a fit and proper person, potentially jeopardising his career and the College’s registration. Albaf sought judicial review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), challenging the Committee’s authority, purpose, reasoning, and failure to afford procedural fairness. He had voluntarily stood down during the investigations and remained stood down without pay.
The Court’s Holding
Schmidt AJ held that the determination had to be set aside because the Committee denied Albaf procedural fairness. Before adopting the inspector’s adverse findings, the Committee was required to disclose the adverse material and give both Albaf and the College a meaningful opportunity to respond. That did not occur, even though their responses could have influenced the outcome.
The Court also found the Committee’s reasoning legally unreasonable. The decision-making process included the inspector and NESA’s chief executive addressing the Committee and remaining while it deliberated, against evidence that those present understood the Minister wanted Albaf not to return to the College. The Committee was required to exercise its delegated function independently and impartially. The Court rejected Albaf’s contention that the Committee lacked delegated authority and did not accept that it had acted beyond the scope of its statutory powers.
The Court did not decide whether Albaf was, on the merits, a fit and proper person. That issue must be reconsidered by the Committee after a procedurally fair process and consideration of all relevant information. The parties were directed to confer and submit proposed orders, including as to costs, within 14 days.
Key Takeaways
- A regulator considering adverse, credible, relevant, and significant material must disclose it to affected parties and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- A delegated committee must exercise its own statutory judgment independently and impartially, particularly where ministerial preferences are known to agency personnel.
- Judicial review addressed the legality of NESA’s process, not the merits of Albaf’s fitness or the acceptability of his social-media posts.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that potentially career-ending regulatory findings require rigorous procedural fairness, even when the underlying conduct has attracted intense public and political concern. An earlier opportunity to answer general concerns does not permit a decision-maker to rely on later, undisclosed adverse findings.
For education regulators and other administrative bodies, the judgment also highlights the need to preserve the independence of delegated decision-makers and to demonstrate genuine consideration of contrary material. NESA may reconsider Albaf’s status, but only through a lawful and fair process.