'It Was All of Us': Usman Khawaja Challenges Australia's Official Account of the 2026 Sandpaper Scandal

Opening the 2026 Sandpapergate file again, the most consequential development has not come from new footage or forensic examination of a cricket ball. It has come from a former Australian player who says the public account of the scandal was incomplete. Usman Khawaja has alleged that the entire Australian touring party knew about the ball-tampering discussions during the 2026 South Africa tour. More significantly, he claims that sandpaper had already been used before the infamous incident in Cape Town.

'It was all of us. Not the batters, not the bowlers, not the staff. All of us,' Khawaja told Nine's media outlets and the Sydney Morning Herald in interviews published three days before the release of his autobiography, Sabr. The statement challenges the central finding of Cricket Australia's 2026 investigation: that prior knowledge of the ball-tampering plan was confined to Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft.

The significance lies in the difference between an incident involving three individuals and a culture in which an entire touring group may have understood what was happening. The distinction matters because the original disciplinary process was built around individual responsibility, while Khawaja is now arguing that the accountability should have extended much further.

The 2026 incident and its official consequences

During the third Test against South Africa at Newlands in March 2026, television cameras caught Cameron Bancroft attempting to rough up the ball with sandpaper. The apparent objective was to alter the ball's surface and improve the prospects of reverse swing. In Test cricket, the condition of the ball can influence bowling conditions over an extended period. An artificially roughened surface therefore has potential tactical value beyond a single delivery.

Cricket Australia's investigation identified Bancroft, then captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner as the three players responsible. Smith and Warner received 12-month suspensions, while Bancroft was banned for nine months. Smith also lost the captaincy, and Warner received additional leadership restrictions. Coach Darren Lehmann subsequently resigned, although he was not found directly involved in the plan.

The four bowlers associated with the incident — Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon — subsequently issued a joint statement in 2026. They said they had not known that a foreign substance had been taken onto the field until they saw the incident on the stadium screen. That statement remains a central piece of evidence against Khawaja's new account.

Khawaja moves the timeline back to Port Elizabeth

The most substantial new element in Khawaja's account concerns the second Test at St George's Park in Port Elizabeth, now known as Gqeberha. According to his autobiography, discussions about ways to rough up the ball took place in the Australian dressing room. He describes the conversations as open and relatively lighthearted, eventually leading to the identification of sandpaper as an effective method.

Khawaja claims Bancroft volunteered to use sandpaper during that Test. He also recalls that the ball was swinging significantly. According to his account, Smith subsequently distanced himself from the discussion, indicating that he did not want to know more about the proposal.

The distinction between discussing a method and knowing that it was actually being used is important. A player could have been aware of conversations about manipulating the ball without necessarily knowing the precise details of what happened on the field. Khawaja's account raises that distinction but does not independently resolve it.

He also says he sat next to Bancroft during the Cape Town Test and observed who spoke to the younger batter during the match. Perhaps more consequentially, Khawaja alleges that Cricket Australia never interviewed him during its original investigation. If accurate, that would raise a direct question about whether an important dressing-room witness was excluded from the inquiry.

Years of watching Test cricket and examining match records have reinforced one recurring point: television footage captures an action, but rarely the complete decision-making structure behind it. The broadcast showed Bancroft and the sandpaper. Khawaja's account concerns the conversations and team environment that allegedly preceded that moment.

Two competing accounts, with no decisive resolution

Khawaja's allegations cannot automatically be treated as established fact. The four Australian bowlers directly contradicted the suggestion that they knew a foreign substance was being used. Their 2026 statement was specific and collective. Bancroft, meanwhile, suggested in a 2026 Guardian interview that the bowlers' awareness was 'self-explanatory'. That remark provides some context for Khawaja's position, but it is not conclusive proof.

There are now competing testimonial accounts, but the publicly available material does not provide forensic or documentary evidence that conclusively establishes which account is correct. The distinction between awareness of general ball-maintenance discussions and knowledge of the actual use of sandpaper remains central.

Cricket Australia has defended its original investigation. In its response to the latest allegations, the governing body said it remained comfortable with its findings and had properly considered all relevant information presented to it. It also indicated that relevant information could still be submitted for consideration.

That response leaves the institutional question open. If Khawaja was never interviewed, the organisation must explain whether his testimony could materially change the original findings. If he was not considered a relevant witness, the reasoning behind that decision also deserves scrutiny.

The three punished players and collective accountability

Khawaja's argument is also framed around the consequences for Smith, Warner and Bancroft. He believes the three players carried the public burden of an episode that involved a much wider group. He says he had encouraged teammates at the time to accept collective responsibility rather than allow three individuals to become the sole representatives of the scandal.

This raises a difficult governance question. Should responsibility for misconduct rest only with the individual who physically carries out an act, or should it extend to people who knew about and supported the plan? The answer depends on evidence of knowledge, participation and individual roles. Collective responsibility cannot erase individual accountability, but individual sanctions should not substitute for examining the wider environment in which misconduct occurs.

Khawaja has said he did not want to become the person who publicly revisited the scandal. He expected the truth to emerge during the eight years since the incident. His account also highlights the personal consequences experienced by Smith, Warner and Bancroft. He has dedicated the relevant section of Sabr to the three players, presenting the chapter as an attempt to address what he believes was an incomplete distribution of blame.

The timing deserves consideration. The allegations were released during the promotional period for Khawaja's autobiography. That commercial context does not invalidate his account, but neither does his willingness to implicate himself automatically establish its accuracy. Testimonial credibility requires corroboration, direct experience and consistency with independently established evidence.

The South African allegation requires separate scrutiny

Khawaja has also claimed that South African players were considerably better at working on the ball and that Australia was attempting to keep pace with practices elsewhere in international cricket. This moves the discussion beyond Australia's internal accountability and into a potentially sensitive allegation about another national team.

Former South African captain Faf du Plessis had previously faced disciplinary action for ball-tampering incidents. However, previous sanctions against an individual cannot establish that an entire team was involved in similar conduct. Khawaja's comments require independent evidence and a response from the people implicated. Historical context is not proof.

What happens next?

Cricket Australia now faces a choice between maintaining its original conclusions and reviewing whether Khawaja's testimony identifies witnesses or events that were insufficiently examined in 2026. The alleged discussions in Port Elizabeth, Bancroft's reported involvement and Khawaja's claim that he was never interviewed should be the starting points for any meaningful reassessment.

A single match can lie; a season rarely does. But eight years of public discussion have not, by themselves, established the complete truth of Sandpapergate. The next test will be whether Khawaja's allegations can be connected to documentary evidence, independent testimony and the original investigation's records. Australia's post-2026 cultural-reform narrative will ultimately be judged by the quality of that examination. The question is no longer limited to who held the sandpaper. It is whether the governing body went far enough to establish who knew what was happening.