‘It Was All of Us’: Usman Khawaja Reveals New Details of the 2026 Sandpaper Scandal, Raising Questions Over Cricket Australia’s Investigation

Sandpaper scandal: Eight years later, questions emerge over collective responsibility in Australian cricket

The image of Cameron Bancroft holding sandpaper during the 2026 Cape Town Test remains one of the most controversial moments in Australian cricket history. Cameras caught a player attempting to alter the condition of the ball, Steve Smith acknowledged the involvement of the leadership group, and Smith, David Warner and Bancroft received severe sanctions. Eight years later, however, Usman Khawaja claims that the story never involved only three players. According to him, the entire team knew what was happening.

‘It was all of us. Not the batters, not the bowlers, not the staff. All of us,’ Khawaja said in an interview ahead of the publication of his autobiography, Sabr. His statement directly challenges Cricket Australia's official conclusion that only Smith, Warner and Bancroft had prior knowledge of the ball-tampering plan. It raises a difficult question: did the investigation limit responsibility to three individuals while leaving a wider team culture unexamined?

Did the controversy begin before Cape Town?

The most significant part of Khawaja's disclosure is his claim that sandpaper was used before the infamous Newlands Test. He points to the second Test of Australia's 2026 South Africa tour, played in Port Elizabeth, now known as Gqeberha.

According to Khawaja's account in Sabr, discussions took place in the dressing room at St George's Park about ways to roughen the ball and generate reverse swing. Sandpaper emerged as one of the proposed methods. Khawaja claims Bancroft volunteered to use it during South Africa's first innings. The ball was swinging considerably, and players discussed its behaviour on the field.

The tactical context matters. In Test cricket, the condition of the ball can influence bowling for an extended period. Maintaining one shiny side and one rough side can help fast bowlers generate reverse swing, allowing an older ball to remain dangerous. Illegally altering the ball therefore affects the competitive balance of the game, rather than representing a minor breach of regulations.

Khawaja also claims that then-captain Steve Smith distanced himself from the discussion, saying he did not want to know about it. This is significant because Smith had previously acknowledged the leadership group's involvement. However, the account in Khawaja's memoir must be distinguished from independently established evidence.

Three punished players and the question of team responsibility

Bancroft was caught on camera using sandpaper during the Cape Town Test. Cricket Australia subsequently investigated the incident and sanctioned three players. Smith and Warner received 12-month suspensions, while Bancroft was banned for nine months. Smith was also removed from the captaincy and faced additional leadership restrictions.

At the time, the sanctions were presented as an attempt to restore the reputation of Australian cricket and reinforce discipline within the team. Khawaja's account challenges the foundation of that response. If players and staff had already discussed methods of altering the ball, why was responsibility restricted to three individuals?

Khawaja says he urged teammates in the dressing room after the Cape Town Test to accept collective responsibility. He believed the team should acknowledge what had happened together. Instead, three players faced disciplinary action and sustained public criticism. He also discussed the way Warner and Smith dealt with the consequences of the controversy.

There is another dimension to Khawaja's testimony. By describing himself as part of the collective environment, he includes himself within the scope of the allegation. A statement that potentially implicates its speaker can carry additional credibility. However, autobiographical testimony is not independent proof. Contemporary notes, communications and accounts from other players are necessary to establish what happened.

The bowlers' denial and the credibility of the investigation

The most difficult questions concern Australia's four leading bowlers. Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon issued a joint statement in 2026 denying knowledge that a foreign substance had been taken onto the field. They said they became aware of the incident when it appeared on the stadium's big screen.

Khawaja's assertion that the entire team knew directly contradicts that statement. On one side are four bowlers who publicly denied prior knowledge; on the other is Khawaja's claim of collective awareness. Cameron Bancroft also made a comment in 2026 that was widely interpreted as suggesting the bowlers knew more than they admitted, but that remark did not establish the matter conclusively.

An important distinction remains: knowing about a dressing-room discussion is different from knowing that a particular substance was being used on the field. The bowling side receives the most direct tactical benefit from an altered ball, but that does not prove that every bowler knew about the material or the plan. Testimony and direct knowledge must therefore be assessed separately.

Khawaja also alleges that Cricket Australia never interviewed him during its official investigation. He says he waited for investigators to contact him, but no call came. If he was present and sitting beside Bancroft, this raises a legitimate procedural question: why was his account not included, or why was there no explanation for the absence of an interview?

Cricket Australia has responded by saying it remains comfortable with the findings of its 2026 investigation. The governing body maintains that all relevant information available at the time was properly considered and that the opportunity to provide further information remains open. It has not accepted Khawaja's allegations, but neither has it closed the door to receiving additional evidence.

Comments about South Africa add another dimension

Khawaja also comments on South Africa's ability to manage the condition of the ball. He says the South Africans were considerably better at it and that Australia was attempting to keep up. He describes ball-management practices used during that period that he says were against the regulations.

This takes the controversy in a new direction. Former South African captain Faf du Plessis had previously faced disciplinary action in ball-tampering cases. However, a player's previous offence cannot establish a new allegation against an entire team. Khawaja's descriptions of conversations and incidents require independent verification.

A wider institutional question emerges. If questionable methods of maintaining the ball were becoming common across international cricket during that period, how effectively did cricket administrators identify and prevent such practices? The alleged behaviour of one team cannot justify the conduct of another. The rules must apply equally in every circumstance.

An old controversy involving current leadership

The disclosure has additional significance because Pat Cummins, one of the leading bowlers in the 2026 team and a signatory to the 2026 joint statement, is now Australia's Test captain. Khawaja informed Cummins and Cricket Australia chief executive Todd Greenberg about the contents of his book before publication. The issue therefore concerns the current leadership as well as the players involved in the original scandal.

Khawaja says he waited eight years hoping the truth would emerge independently. He claims he had previously argued for collective responsibility. Through his autobiography, he has now made his version of events public. It would be premature to treat his account as a complete resolution, but dismissing it simply as book promotion would also be inadequate.

The most important question is how cricket integrity should be evaluated. The number of suspensions alone cannot establish whether an investigation was comprehensive. Who was interviewed, whose testimony was recorded and what evidence supported the final findings are equally important questions. Holding an individual accountable is relatively straightforward; investigating an entire team's culture and the administration's responsibility is much harder.

A sport's reputation extends beyond its win-loss record. Cricket Australia now has an opportunity to assess Khawaja's claims against available evidence and clarify the unanswered questions surrounding the 2026 investigation. If new facts emerge, acknowledging them should be part of the same sporting integrity expected on the field. Eight years later, the real test is whether Cricket Australia simply defends its original report or is prepared to examine it again through the lens of accountability.