You said, "The South African government isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing land from white land owners."
Your initial statement quoted above was wrong for two reasons. First, the South African government denies that they are stealing land. So clearly, if the South African government is at fault, they are trying to hide it. Second, no land has been stolen, confiscated, expropriated or otherwise taken under the new law. The new law has not been used.
Your new statement is wrong because the law, which you can read for yourself
here, does not condition expropriation on the race of the landowner.
I will not be at all surprised if South Africa implements the new law in a way that discriminates against white landowners. Contrary to your statements, however, they haven't done so yet.
Since whites in South Africa own 70% of the land and make up 7% of the population, it is very likely that the law, when implemented, will disproportionately affect white landowners. During Apartheid, land was legally stolen from blacks by whites. Few, if any, of the people who stole the land are alive today, and few, if any, of the victims are alive today. The question, then, is whether or not the heirs of the thieves should get to keep the land and the heirs of the victims should be denied the land. The new law is broadly worded, leaving great discretion to the government officials who will enforce it. It seems like it will be a difficult balancing act.