Alleged ISIS propagandist getting NDIS care paid for by Aussie taxpayers after being released back into the community
Mohamed Musse Bakit, 65, has been granted bail by a Melbourne court after being charged with offences including membership of a terrorist organisation. The magistrate cited his serious health problems, age and his wife’s dependence on him as exceptional circumstances, while noting that he could spend longer on remand than any eventual sentence.
Police allege that devices linked to Bakit contained thousands of messages and files promoting Islamic State, including violent material; he denies no charges in the article, which reports allegations only. He had received approval for NDIS care after a stroke in 2023, and the court heard he would get 24 hours of care each week. Bail conditions include remaining in Victoria and restrictions on encrypted messaging and terrorist material; he is due back in court in March.
- A 65-year-old accused of Islamic State offences has been granted bail.
- The court cited his health, age and family circumstances.
- Bail includes restrictions on travel, messaging apps and terrorist material.
New here? Start with this
Mohamed Musse Bakit, a 65-year-old Melbourne resident, has been charged with serious offences including membership of a terrorist organisation. Police allege that electronic devices linked to him contained thousands of messages and files promoting Islamic State, including violent material.
A Melbourne magistrate has granted Bakit bail despite the gravity of the allegations, citing exceptional circumstances including his age, serious health problems and his wife's dependence on him. The judge noted he might spend longer waiting on remand than serving any eventual prison sentence. Bakit had a stroke in 2023 and is receiving support through the NDIS, which is Australia's government-funded disability insurance scheme.
The situation has drawn attention because Bakit is receiving taxpayer-funded disability support whilst facing terrorist-related charges. The case illustrates tensions between disability welfare, criminal justice and national security concerns when they apply to the same individual.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Once released on bail, a person retains full legal rights as a citizen, including eligibility for the NDIS on the basis of disability alone. The magistrate has already judicially determined that bail is appropriate given health, age, and family circumstances; this decision implicitly affirms the person's right to live in the community with necessary support. Denying disability funding based on criminal allegations—prior to any conviction—would constitute extra-judicial punishment and discriminatory treatment that breaches the principle that disability support should be non-discriminatory.
The case against
Whilst all citizens deserve basic legal protections, there is legitimate public concern about deploying taxpayer-funded disability support for someone under serious investigation for terrorism-related offences involving violent propaganda. The NDIS is a significant public investment intended for vulnerable citizens; applying it universally to terrorism suspects raises fair questions about the limits of disability policy and public resource allocation. One can support both disability rights and reasonable debate about whether certain exceptional circumstances—particularly terrorism—warrant special consideration in how public schemes are applied.