Did Usman Khawaja write an autobiography called Sabr about the sandpaper scandal?

I never speak on behalf of anyone else in my book; it is my recollection of events only1

This one is checkable against the book itself. The excerpt shown on screen in the video states that he is not speaking on behalf of anyone but himself and that this is his recollection of events, which matches what he says out loud. The publisher's blurb frames the book the same way, as his own story. So the packaging is consistent. That said, the distinction is narrower than it sounds. A first-person account can still make claims about other people's knowledge and conduct — as this one does about team-mates and coaches — without formally 'speaking for' them. The line protects him from accusations of putting words in colleagues' mouths, but it does not make his account of their behaviour neutral or verified. Readers should take the claim at face value as a statement about the book's voice, and then judge the substance of his allegations separately.

When Smith, Warner and Bancroft got their penalties in 2018, I told Steve Smith I was going to come clean to the media, and he talked me out of it24

This is a private conversation between two people, recalled years later by one of them. Several outlets reported it faithfully — ABC and the Guardian both carried the account on 7-8 November 2026 — but reporting that someone said something is not the same as confirming it happened. No independent party has corroborated the exchange, and Smith has neither confirmed nor denied it publicly in the material we reviewed. The detail that lifts it above pure assertion is that Khawaja describes writing events down within days of Cape Town, and that the account is consistent across the video, the book and the coverage. Consistency, though, confirms that he tells the same story, not that the story is true. A reader weighing this should treat it as a serious first-hand allegation from a named participant, which is more than an anonymous rumour, while recognising that the other person in the room has not spoken.

Still open: Whether Steve Smith has responded to the specific claim, and whether he will.

In 2021 I called Justin Langer for hours and spoke to Todd Greenberg, then ACA CEO, to get the team to take collective responsibility, but a statement from the bowlers denying knowledge ended that attempt27

The surrounding scaffolding of this claim checks out, which is what makes it credible even though the phone calls themselves are private. Justin Langer was Australia's head coach in 2021. Todd Greenberg was then chief executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association, the players' union. And Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon did issue a joint statement in 2021 saying they had no knowledge of a foreign substance being taken onto the field. Those are public, dated, documented facts, and they match his sequence of events. What cannot be verified is what was said on the calls and how long they lasted. His account is that he wanted the team to cop it collectively and that the bowlers' statement closed the door. The documented statement is real; the conversations around it rest on his word. That mix is why we rate this likely true rather than confirmed.

I did not speak out in the years after 2021 because I was still in the team and did not want to be the first to raise it

This is a statement about his own reasons, not a fact that can be checked against records. Nobody can inspect a motive. What we can do is note that the surrounding timeline fits: he was recalled to the Test side in 2022 and retired in January 2026, so the years he describes staying quiet overlap with his time in the team. Fit is not proof. A motive that makes sense is still a motive asserted by the person holding it. The right way to handle claims like this is to separate the checkable timeline from the uncheckable reason, and report both clearly. Readers often treat a plausible explanation as a verified one; the distinction matters here because his explanation is also his defence against the charge of sitting on the story for eight years.

Everyone in the Australian team knew about the sandpaper use (he would not deny it)36

This is the contested heart of the story, and it is where the verdict gets interesting. Khawaja, who batted at number three in Cape Town, says the whole team and staff knew, and that sandpaper was used in the previous Test at Port Elizabeth. He is a direct participant, which gives his account weight. Against it: Cricket Australia says it remains comfortable with its 2018 integrity finding that only Smith, Warner and Bancroft knew; former coach Darren Lehmann said he does not think everybody would have known; and the four frontline bowlers issued a statement in 2021 denying knowledge of a foreign substance on the field. So we have a serious first-hand allegation on one side and an official finding plus direct denials on the other. Neither has been tested in a court or an independent inquiry since. 'Partly true' reflects that his presence and detail are real while the team-wide knowledge is not established.

Still open: Whether any other player or staff member will publicly support Khawaja's account of team-wide knowledge.

In 2023, when I spoke out about the Palestinians, I told a teammate I would stop if asked, and he said it did not affect the team so keep going1

The public half of this is documented: Khawaja did campaign publicly on the Palestinians in 2023, which is why the exchange is plausible in outline. The private half — a conversation in a hotel corridor, reported from memory — cannot be checked by anyone outside the two people involved, and no reporting we found corroborates the specific exchange. This is the weakest claim in the post and we rate it low confidence for that reason, not because we doubt his sincerity. It matters to the overall picture because it is offered as evidence of his character and of how he handled controversy inside the team, and readers may absorb it as established fact alongside the better-documented material. The discipline is to notice which parts of a long, fluent account rest on records and which rest on memory, and to weight them differently.

Still open: Whether the team-mate involved has commented publicly.