A lot of good information in the article.
Apologists:
article said:
According to South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), the proposed amendment would introduce greater clarity to existing expropriation provisions, though it would remove the stipulation “subject to compensation”.
In other words, they're going to steal it.
So if a thief steals a valuable piece of jewelry from your grandmother, does the thief's grandson get to keep it even though it's known it belonged to your grandmother?
Basically every bit of land has been stolen from it's original owners, generally many times. Specific objects from specific people, ok, return is generally appropriate. General objects from populations--no. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Most of the land on question has a clear paper trail, so why shouldn't the government recover it? Returning stolen property is not a second wrong, it's the righting of a wrong.
Your ethics are basically saying that redress for a theft should be impossible as long if the thief fenced or laundered the stuff they stole quickly enough, that they are no longer owned by the original thief. But that's not how the law works. If you
know the Rolex is a fenced good, you're also on the hook for buying it, and the grandson of a thief should similarly be the hook for the stolen goods he inherits. On what basis does a current owner of a farm on stolen land have rights to it? They didn't pay for it, it wasn't granted to them, they didn't work for it. They just inherited a criminal enterprise, which is not a kind of type of "right" that a nation is morally obliged to honor.