A fresh lead has emerged in the international investigation into the Bondi Beach mass shooting, after Philippine police said one of the alleged gunmen visited a firearms shop in Davao City during a four-week trip to the Philippines just weeks before the attack that killed 15 people at a Hanukkah gathering in Sydney.
The disclosure adds a sharper edge to questions Australian investigators have been asking since authorities confirmed the suspects—Sajid Akram and his son Naveed Akram—travelled to the Philippines in November. Sajid was killed by police at the scene; Naveed has since been charged in Australia with dozens of offences, including multiple counts of murder and terrorism-related allegations.
What Philippine police say happened in Davao
Philippine police told reporters they are reviewing CCTV and other records of the suspects’ movements while they stayed in Davao City, the largest city on Mindanao, and that Sajid Akram visited a firearms shop during that period.
Investigators in the Philippines described other activities captured on surveillance footage, including the pair engaging in physical exercise near their hotel—activity police characterised as possible “physical conditioning,” though they stressed they are still determining what it meant and whether it connects directly to the attack.
A key point: Philippine authorities said they have not found evidence the men visited shooting ranges in Davao—information that complicates, rather than resolves, speculation about weapons training during the trip.
The November trip: weeks in one city, a trail of CCTV, and unanswered questions
Authorities have said the father and son arrived in the Philippines on November 1 and left on November 28, a timeline now central to the inquiry into whether the trip involved radicalisation, contacts, financing, or operational planning.
Multiple outlets have reported that the men stayed at a budget hotel in downtown Davao and were described by staff as spending much of their time in or near their room, repeatedly extending their stay.
New Zealand’s RNZ, citing reporting from Australia, also described CCTV showing a man resembling Naveed Akram near the hotel in the early hours—another piece of the timeline investigators are stitching together across borders.
Why a firearms shop visit matters — and why it doesn’t answer everything
In criminal investigations, a firearms shop visit can be interpreted in multiple ways: curiosity, attempted procurement, reconnaissance, or simply a mundane stop. What makes this allegation significant is timing—coming weeks before an attack that Australian authorities have linked to extremist ideology—and the broader context of authorities probing whether the suspects had any overseas connections.
But the known facts—at least publicly—still leave major gaps:
- Police in the Philippines have not publicly said what, if anything, was purchased.
- Authorities have also said they have not confirmed the suspects went to firing ranges.
- Australian police have said the reasons for the trip were under investigation, without stating a definitive purpose.
In other words, the firearms shop detail strengthens the investigative thread around intent and preparation, but it does not—on its own—prove training or procurement.
Cooperation between Manila and Canberra
Philippine national security officials have publicly pledged cooperation with Australia as both countries examine the suspects’ movements and any potential security risks. The inquiry includes reviewing surveillance footage from businesses, hotels and surrounding streets, and examining possible communications and contacts during the stay.
This kind of cooperation has become routine in modern counterterrorism and transnational crime investigations: travel patterns and minor logistical details—hotel bookings, shop visits, SIM cards—can become pivotal in reconstructing planning.
The wider context: Mindanao’s reputation and the risk of scapegoating
Davao sits on Mindanao, a region that has long been associated in international reporting with pockets of militant activity, even as Philippine authorities and many analysts caution against painting the entire area as a “training ground” by default. Coverage in regional outlets has noted sensitivity in the Philippines about being blamed for Australia’s tragedy, particularly when the factual links remain under investigation.
That tension is now part of the story: investigators must follow leads wherever they go—while governments and communities are wary of narratives that imply guilt by geography.
What comes next
For investigators, the next steps are likely to focus on three questions:
- What happened at the firearms shop—whether there was a purchase attempt, what was discussed, and whether the visit connects to later events.
- Who the suspects interacted with in Davao—contacts, communications, and any facilitation network.
- How the attack was enabled back in Australia, including licensing, weapon access, and potential intelligence gaps.
For the public, each new detail is another attempt to answer the same unbearable question: how a mass attack could be prepared—quietly, in fragments—until it erupted into catastrophe in a matter of minutes.
7 years in the field, from local radio to digital newsrooms. Loves chasing the stories that matter to everyday Aussies – whether it’s climate, cost of living or the next big thing in tech.
