The NSW Supreme Court has ruled NESA used an unfair process when finding New Madinah College principal Sheikh Abdulghani Albaf was not a fit and proper person. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
A Young Islamic school principal has successfully challenged a finding that he was not a “fit and proper person” to lead his school after the NSW Supreme Court ruled the state’s education regulator had used an unfair process.
Sheikh Abdulghani Albaf, principal of New Madinah College in the Hilltops town of Young, took the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) and the state’s Education Minister to court after NESA’s Registration and Accreditation Committee determined on 17 February 2026 that he did not meet the standard required under the Education Act.
Acting Justice Monika Schmidt on Friday (24 July) found Sheikh Albaf and the college had been denied procedural fairness because an inspector’s adverse findings about him were never disclosed to either of them before the committee made its decision.
The committee’s reasoning was also legally unreasonable, she found, because it did not properly explain why it rejected the college’s own assessment or why it concluded Sheikh Albaf had shown no remorse.
The judgment also revealed there was evidence staff involved in the process understood the Education Minister did not want Sheikh Albaf to return to the school.
Justice Schmidt said that outcome was not relevant to the decision the committee was required to make, and its power had to be exercised independently.
The case centred on Facebook and Instagram posts Sheikh Albaf published in 2025 expressing political opinions about Israel, Zionism and the war in Gaza.
It was not the first time his social media activity had drawn regulatory scrutiny.
Earlier posts, made before he joined New Madinah College, had already prompted a Commonwealth Department of Education investigation into whether the college was meeting the requirement that its principal be a fit and proper person.
That investigation ended with the federal department, NESA and the college all satisfied Sheikh Albaf met the standard.
The issue resurfaced in December 2025, when the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach prompted media inquiries to NESA about more recent posts Sheikh Albaf had published earlier that year.
Justice Schmidt said there was no dispute Sheikh Albaf was legally entitled to hold and express political opinions, but he had erred in the way he expressed some of them.
He accepted some of his language had been inappropriate and edited or removed the posts after concerns were raised.
Justice Schmidt said the evidence established that, during a phone call on 16 January, NESA chief executive Paul Martin told the college’s board chairman there was considerable political pressure and suggested Sheikh Albaf stand down voluntarily.
Mr Martin was also described as being “pretty adamant” the college’s registration would be cancelled if Sheikh Albaf did not stand aside.
Sheikh Albaf, who was still overseas, agreed to voluntarily stand down in the interests of the college on 22 January.
On 29 January, he signed an undertaking not to publish similar social media comments while employed by the school.
The college also issued him with a formal show-cause notice, which referred to posts describing Israel as a “Zionist terrorist” state and “Devil Masters”, and one that read: “Ya Allah, destroy the Zionist State of Israel”.
The notice said the posts could be seen as offensive, harmful, divisive, extremist or antisemitic, and noted they had been publicly available while he was employed by the college.
The college’s board considered his written response and interviewed him before concluding in mid-February that he remained fit for the role and there was no basis to terminate his employment.
It nonetheless found his conduct had fallen short of what was expected of a principal and placed him on six months’ probation, with additional counselling, training and monitoring.
Sheikh Albaf accepted the college’s findings and the disciplinary action it took.
NESA senior inspector Susan Prideaux reached a different conclusion after reviewing the college’s response, Sheikh Albaf’s posts and his reply to the show-cause notice.
Her report found the posts contained, “implicit, if not explicit” violent or hate-related commentary and concluded the college had been wrong to find Sheikh Albaf remained fit and proper.
That report was never given to Sheikh Albaf or the college before the committee considered it and made its decision on 17 February.
The committee’s stated reasons included what it described as an ongoing pattern of posts, a lack of remorse, their “concerning and hateful tone” and the need for a principal to set an appropriate ethical and moral example.
NESA then told the college its registration was at risk and sought a response before deciding whether to recommend it be cancelled.
Justice Schmidt found the college’s show-cause notice had not alerted Sheikh Albaf to the inspector’s later conclusions or the reasoning behind them.
Neither the inspector nor the committee had spoken to him before the decision was made.
“The committee was not lawfully entitled to proceed as it did,” she said.
The judgment also examined who was present when the decision was made.
NESA’s chief executive and the senior inspector both addressed the committee, while other staff remained as it discussed and decided the matter.
Justice Schmidt described that as an unusual approach.
Their presence would not automatically invalidate the decision, she said, but it was preferable that no questions could arise about whether people who were not committee members had influenced its discussions.
That was particularly important given the evidence that those present understood the minister wanted Sheikh Albaf not to return to the college.
The power to decide whether he was fit and proper belonged to the committee alone, Justice Schmidt said, and had to be exercised independently and without interference.
Sheikh Albaf did not succeed on every point.
Justice Schmidt found the committee did have the authority to decide whether he was fit and proper and that NESA was entitled to settle that question before separately deciding whether to recommend cancelling the college’s registration.
She also rejected the claim the committee had acted for the improper purpose of pressuring the college to sack him. A separate fraud claim was abandoned during the hearing.
The committee’s finding must now be set aside, rather than replaced.
Sheikh Albaf has not been found fit and proper by the court and there is no guarantee he will return to the role.
NESA’s committee must reconsider the matter after giving Sheikh Albaf and the college an opportunity to respond to the material used against them.
Should that process ultimately result in a recommendation that the college’s registration be cancelled, both Sheikh Albaf and the college would be entitled to seek administrative review in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
For now, the college’s acting principal remains in charge and the parties have 14 days to submit proposed formal orders, including on legal costs.
Justice Schmidt’s closing remarks were pointed: “The overwhelming conclusion which the evidence drives is that those who comprise this important committee must do better than they have managed so far,” she said.
Original Article published by Edwina Mason on About Regional.
Strange, I thought city-based elites like Labor's Communications Minister Anika Wells should fix it. View