I'm actually glad to see some one post this. If the land was stoled originally, then it seems they should have a claim of action. And they certainly were not better off under an apartheid government.
That said, there are 2 very important issues that appear to be lacking here. First, what is the standard of proof that the land was originally stolen? You would have to show, first, that it was legitimitely owned, and secondly, that the transfer was involuntary. The article glosses over those points - for all I know, they were properly shown - but I somehow doubt it. If anyone knows more, I'd be interested in hearing it.
The second point, though, is one that we're seeing increasingly in this country too, a lack or disregard for any statute of limitations. At some point, we should take ownership as a given, and void old claims, simply to keep basic order. We see this a lot in any dealings in antiquities (witness the current brouhaha about the Getty Museum, or the American Indian claims in upstate New York.) Is 60-70 years long enough? It's even more complex, of course, as the previous owners would have been prohibited from advancing a claim under the old South African government.
Suffice to say, not a simple situation. From the (admittedly) little I know of the situation, I'm inclined to think the current South African government is wrong in this situation, for the reasons given earlier. Any other links, though?
Drew Garrett
The Oneida claims in the Syracuse area are different than the case in SA and most other cases in America because it's not a civil case or criminal case, but rather an international case rooted in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.
also, interesting post.