'It Was All of Us': Usman Khawaja Reopens Australia's 2026 Sandpaper Scandal and Questions Collective Accountability

'It Was All of Us': The Old Ball from Cape Town Reopens a New Controversy

The images from the Cape Town Test of March 2026 occupy a troubling place in Australian cricket history. At Newlands, television cameras captured Cameron Bancroft interfering with the ball's surface. The sandpaper concealed in his trousers, the footage shown around the world and Steve Smith's subsequent admission shook international cricket. Eight years later, the story is being reopened by a former teammate who says the accepted account left out a much larger part of the dressing room.

Former Australia opener Usman Khawaja has claimed that knowledge of ball tampering during the 2026 South Africa tour extended beyond Smith, David Warner and Bancroft. In an interview ahead of the publication of his autobiography, Sabr, Khawaja said the entire team and support staff knew what was happening. His central statement was emphatic: 'It was all of us. Not the batters, not the bowlers, not the staff. All of us.'

The most consequential part of the disclosure is that Khawaja says sandpaper had also been used in the preceding Test at Port Elizabeth, now known as Gqeberha. If substantiated, his account would shift the scandal from an isolated incident at Newlands to an alleged method that had been discussed and tested earlier in the four-Test series.

These remain Khawaja's allegations and recollections, not independently established findings. Cricket Australia has defended its 2026 investigation. Four leading Australian bowlers issued a joint statement in 2026 saying they did not know that a foreign substance had been taken onto the field until they saw the incident on the stadium screen. The central questions are therefore straightforward but difficult: who knew what, when did they know it, and how comprehensively did the original investigation examine the dressing room?

From Gqeberha to Newlands: The Background

Australia's 2026 tour of South Africa consisted of four Tests. The rivalry between the sides was already intense, and South African conditions offered a demanding examination of Australia's pace attack. In Test cricket, maintaining the condition of the ball can have a significant tactical impact. A pronounced difference between the shiny and rough sides can help bowlers generate reverse swing, particularly as the ball ages.

The second Test was played at St George's Park in Port Elizabeth. In his account, Khawaja describes open and initially light-hearted dressing-room discussions about ways to rough up the ball. Those conversations allegedly led to the discovery of sandpaper as an effective means of altering its surface. Khawaja says Smith then distanced himself from the discussion, indicating that he did not want to know about it.

Khawaja's account also assigns an important role to Bancroft. He alleges that during a break in play, Bancroft volunteered to use sandpaper on the ball in South Africa's first innings. The ball subsequently swung significantly, and its behaviour was discussed by players on the field. If accurate, this would place the alleged beginning of the practice before the incident that was captured on television at Newlands. The precise conversations and the involvement of each individual, however, have not been independently established in the publicly available material.

The controversy became international news during the third Test at Newlands. Television cameras recorded Bancroft using sandpaper on the ball. Under pressure, Smith admitted that the leadership group had planned to alter the ball's condition. Smith, vice-captain Warner and Bancroft faced disciplinary action. Smith and Warner received 12-month bans, while Bancroft was suspended for nine months. Smith lost the captaincy, and Warner was also barred from leadership roles.

Cricket Australia's investigation concluded that prior knowledge of the plan was limited to those three players. That finding established the institutional account of the scandal. The sanctions were imposed, leadership changed and Australian cricket began speaking about rebuilding its culture. Khawaja's new claim challenges the boundary drawn by that investigation.

Khawaja's Claim: Three Punished, but Was the Responsibility Collective?

The most significant aspect of Khawaja's account is his rejection of the interpretation that Smith, Warner and Bancroft alone carried responsibility for the episode. He says he urged the dressing room after the incident to accept collective responsibility. In his view, the team should have acknowledged what it had done as a group. Instead, three players became the principal targets of public criticism and disciplinary action.

Khawaja specifically refers to Warner's silence. He says Warner endured years of criticism without repeatedly offering public explanations. He also discusses the effect on Bancroft's career. Bancroft continued scoring runs in domestic cricket but did not regain his place in Australia's Test side. Smith returned to international cricket and re-established himself as one of the leading batters of his generation, although Khawaja believes the events of 2026 remained personally significant for him.

An important distinction must be maintained. Knowing about an incident, participating in a plan and physically carrying out an illegal act are three different forms of involvement. Khawaja's claim that the whole team knew does not automatically establish that every player planned, approved or assisted the use of sandpaper. However, if the subject was openly discussed in the dressing room, it raises a serious question about how widely the behaviour had become normalised within the group.

The central issue is no longer simply who held the sandpaper; it is how many people knew about the conduct that made the incident possible. This is where individual punishment and institutional accountability diverge. Television footage can provide direct evidence against the player seen using an illegal substance. Establishing what other players heard or understood requires testimony, documents and a careful reconstruction of events.

Khawaja also says Cricket Australia's investigators never interviewed him. He recalls sitting beside Bancroft throughout the Cape Town Test and waiting for investigators to contact him. According to Khawaja, no call came. He suspects that investigators may have known he favoured collective responsibility and was prepared to tell the truth. That is his interpretation of their motives, not proof of why he was not interviewed. Nevertheless, if an important dressing-room witness was not questioned, the scope of the original inquiry deserves scrutiny.

Khawaja says he did not want to become the person who reopened the issue. He expected another player to speak during the intervening eight years. When that did not happen, he decided to include his account in his autobiography. He believes the treatment of the three sanctioned players left an element of justice unresolved.

Four Bowlers' Statement and Conflicting Testimony

The most significant institutional challenge to Khawaja's allegation is the joint statement issued in 2026 by four Australian bowlers: Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon. They said they had not known that a foreign substance had been taken onto the field until they saw the incident on the stadium's big screen. All four were central members of Australia's bowling group during the period in question.

The statement followed a 2026 Guardian interview in which Bancroft suggested that the bowlers' awareness was probably self-explanatory. His remark reignited debate about whether the bowlers could have been unaware of the ball's unusual condition. The four players then issued their collective denial. Khawaja's new account brings that contradiction back into public view.

The evidence must be separated carefully. Bancroft's remark is not conclusive proof that the bowlers knew about the sandpaper. Equally, Khawaja's account does not automatically disprove their 2026 statement. The public record contains conflicting accounts, but no decisive independent evidence that resolves the disagreement.

A batter hearing a dressing-room conversation and a bowler noticing a change in the ball's behaviour are different experiences. A bowler may observe unusual reverse swing without knowing that an illegal substance was used. Conversely, if sandpaper was openly discussed in the dressing room, knowledge of the idea may have extended beyond the bowling group. Any investigation must establish what each individual heard, saw and understood, and when.

Khawaja's credibility also needs to be assessed on two levels. His willingness to include himself in the collective responsibility he describes may be a positive credibility signal. On the other hand, the disclosure was delivered through a high-profile media interview shortly before his autobiography's publication. The commercial and publicity context does not make the claim false, but it cannot serve as independent corroboration either.

Moral courage and evidentiary strength are not the same thing. Khawaja's account matters because he was present in the team environment and is now offering a detailed recollection. But it must be tested against investigation records, the testimony of other players and any available contemporaneous footage or documentation.

Cricket Australia's Investigation and Institutional Questions

Cricket Australia has defended its original investigation following Khawaja's disclosure. The governing body has said the issue has been extensively discussed since 2026 and that relevant information can still be presented. It has also said that information provided to date has been properly considered and that it remains comfortable with the findings of its integrity process.

That response raises two questions. First, if Khawaja is correct that investigators never interviewed him, did the 2026 inquiry attempt to contact every potentially relevant witness? Second, if a former player is now presenting an account that challenges the original finding, should the governing body review the earlier record? An institution may reasonably have confidence in its investigation, but the credibility of an inquiry depends on the process used to reach its conclusion.

The original inquiry followed the Newlands incident and resulted in sanctions against Smith, Warner and Bancroft. Khawaja now says he was sitting beside Bancroft and was never asked for an account. If that is factually correct, the investigation record should explain why he was not interviewed as a potential witness.

It is also important to assess the inquiry according to the evidence available at the time. A memoir published eight years later does not, by itself, prove that investigators deliberately narrowed the investigation. They may have reached their conclusion using the information then available. It is also possible that some relevant witnesses were not interviewed. The distinction can only be established through the original records and testimony from those involved.

Australian cricket subsequently emphasised a cultural reset. Under coach Justin Langer, the team placed greater emphasis on humility, accountability and behaviour. Khawaja himself acknowledges that some positive changes followed the crisis. He believes the scandal taught the Australian team humility. That observation adds complexity to his allegation: he argues that the original responsibility was collective, while also acknowledging that the crisis helped the team move in a better direction.

The present dispute therefore tests more than the reputations of former players. It challenges the institutional narrative that the 2026 problem was confined to three individuals and that the team subsequently repaired its culture. If Khawaja is right, the problem was wider. If his account cannot be substantiated, the 2026 statements and the original findings may retain their existing standing.

The South African Allegation: A Second Direction of Accusation

Another sensitive part of Khawaja's disclosure concerns South Africa. He claims that South African players were more adept at working on the ball than Australia and that the Australians were trying to keep up. He has said that his book includes details he heard from a South African player about what the opposition were doing.

This allegation requires particular caution. Accusing an opposing team of illegal ball tampering is serious. Former South African captain Faf du Plessis has previously faced disciplinary action in ball-condition cases, including an incident in 2026 and a 2026 Test against Australia in Hobart involving the use of mint. Those cases provide historical context, but they do not prove Khawaja's broader claim about the South African team in 2026.

A team's previous disciplinary history cannot substitute for evidence against it in a new allegation. If Khawaja has specific information about a South African player or group, it should be presented with identifiable incidents, dates and supporting evidence. A general observation cannot establish the responsibility of an entire dressing room.

This part of the disclosure could also complicate the original Australian controversy. When the discussion concerns what Australia did and who knew, the investigative boundaries are clear. Once allegations extend to South Africa, the rivalry's history, old disciplinary cases and competing public narratives enter the debate. The distinction between evidence and counter-accusation becomes even more important.

Ball Condition and the Ethics of Test Cricket

Understanding the scandal requires understanding the role of the ball in Test cricket. In limited-overs cricket, ball condition matters, but in Tests an ageing ball remains part of the contest for a much longer period. Maintaining a shiny side and allowing the other side to become naturally rough can help generate reverse swing. For fast bowlers, this can make the ball's movement harder for batters to predict.

Illegal alteration seeks to influence that process artificially. The potential benefit primarily goes to the bowling side, but measuring its effect independently is extremely difficult. Wickets and runs are shaped by the pitch, weather, bowling speed, batting technique, fielding and many other factors. It is therefore impossible to attribute a match result to one act of ball tampering without additional evidence.

The same limitation applies to Australia's 2026 series. Australia lost the series 1-3, but it is impossible to isolate how many overs were affected by the altered ball or how much the practice changed the results. If Khawaja's claim extends to two Tests, the investigative question becomes larger. It still does not create a simple causal link between ball condition and the scorecard.

There is another important distinction: the benefit of ball tampering may primarily accrue to bowlers, but knowledge of the plan need not be confined to them. Dressing-room discussions, the captain's role, team management and players' reactions all require examination. A batter may benefit from the ball's behaviour without being involved in the illegal method. A bowler may notice unusual movement without knowing its cause.

That is why the difference between 'everyone knew' and 'everyone participated' is crucial. Khawaja's phrase is powerful, but an investigation must translate it into specific questions. Who knew sandpaper was being discussed? Who heard a proposal to use it? Who approved it? Who saw it used on the field? Who knew about it afterwards? The answers may differ from one individual to another.

The Book, the Timing and the Credibility of a Public Disclosure

Khawaja's revelation emerged three days before the publication of his autobiography, Sabr. He wrote the book himself without a ghostwriter and discussed the subject in an exclusive interview with Nine newspapers. The timing is a relevant part of the story. A memoir gives a player an opportunity to discuss episodes that may have been difficult to address during an active career. At the same time, a major revelation carries obvious publicity value ahead of publication.

Both considerations must be kept in view. Khawaja has the right to tell his story and describe his recollection of events. But an exclusive interview before publication does not verify the allegations. Equally, the commercial context of a book is not grounds for dismissing them. A fair assessment requires comparison with other players' testimony and official records.

Khawaja says he did not want to be the person who spoke out. He expected Warner or another teammate to reveal more of the story. He argues that the three sanctioned players continued to carry the burden of the scandal and that remaining silent no longer seemed right.

There is a human dimension to this account. Smith, Warner and Bancroft experienced the consequences in different ways. Smith returned to international cricket and re-established himself as one of the most influential batters of his generation. Warner continued a long international career, although the controversy remained attached to his public image. Bancroft faced a more difficult route back. Khawaja views their treatment through the lens of collective accountability.

But a demand for fairness also requires the four bowlers' statement to be treated seriously. Their denial cannot be dismissed simply because a former teammate now offers a different account. Nor should Khawaja be considered unreliable merely because his disclosure came close to the publication of a book. Both accounts must be assessed using the same evidentiary standards.

An Old Question for Australia's Current Generation

Pat Cummins' position gives the issue present-day significance. He was part of Australia's pace attack in 2026 and was among the four players who issued the 2026 statement. He is now the national Test captain. Khawaja had spoken to Cummins about the book in advance and told him that he intended to discuss the sandpaper episode. Cummins has said that the matter was investigated at the time and that the team has moved on.

That response reflects the position of the current leadership. It is difficult for a captain to reopen an old controversy, particularly when he was part of the team involved. Yet moving on does not mean that every question is permanently settled. When new testimony emerges, assessing it is part of institutional responsibility.

Australia attempted to change its leadership style and team behaviour after 2026. The success of that process cannot be measured only through victories. Team culture also means allowing questions about poor decisions, ensuring that all relevant witnesses are heard and maintaining accountability for public statements. If Khawaja is right, the action focused on three players failed to examine the team's wider behaviour. If he is wrong, transparent scrutiny is still necessary to establish why.

The greatest risk is that the dispute becomes a personal exchange between former teammates. That would push the original questions about the ball, the investigation and the disciplinary process into the background. The reputation of cricket is larger than the reputation of any individual captain, batter or bowler. No one should be declared guilty or innocent in advance.

What Should Happen Next?

The first step should be to establish the precise scope of the original 2026 inquiry. Which players and members of the support staff were interviewed? Was the alleged incident at Gqeberha examined? Are there official reports or video analyses concerning the ball's behaviour during that Test? Can another player or staff member corroborate the conversations Khawaja says he witnessed? These questions require records, not emotional responses.

The second step is to separate Khawaja's claims into distinct categories. Knowledge of the sandpaper use at Cape Town, the alleged earlier use at Port Elizabeth, the bowlers' awareness and the claims about South Africa cannot be merged into one conclusion. Each requires its own evidence. Establishing one part would not automatically prove the others.

The third step is to examine the precise meaning of the bowlers' 2026 statement. Did it address only their knowledge of a foreign substance being taken onto the field, or did it also deny awareness of earlier dressing-room discussions? Do Khawaja's recollections directly contradict that statement, or do they concern a different level of knowledge? Without clarifying this distinction, accusing either side of lying would be premature.

Finally, Cricket Australia must clarify whether it is prepared to formally record and assess Khawaja's new information. The governing body has said relevant information can still be presented. The next test is whether that opportunity becomes a transparent review or whether the old position is simply repeated.

The Final Question: Eight Years Later, the Ball Still Has a Story

The world saw the Cape Town footage. It saw the sandpaper, understood Bancroft's role and watched three players receive sanctions. But visual evidence of an incident does not always tell the entire story. Khawaja's disclosure challenges the accepted account. He says responsibility extended well beyond three players and that the process had begun at Port Elizabeth.

For now, his account is a subject for investigation, not a final verdict. The bowlers' 2026 statement, Cricket Australia's original inquiry, Bancroft's earlier remarks and Khawaja's new testimony must all be considered together. The allegations about South Africa also require independent evidence before they can be treated as fact.

More details may emerge after the publication of Sabr. The real test, however, will not be the book's sales or the volume of headlines. It will be whether Australian cricket is willing to revisit its record and hear every relevant voice. The ball's surface was altered eight years ago; the question now concerns the surface of the investigation on which Australian cricket wrote its defence. Will those findings withstand the scrutiny of new evidence?