The article is largely accurate in its depiction of the reopening of the inquest into Albert Luthuli's death. It correctly states that Luthuli was a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former leader of the African National Congress. The claim that his death in 1967 was initially ruled an accident is consistent with historical records. However, the article could benefit from more explicit citations or references to the new evidence that prosecutors claim challenges the original findings. The mention of collusion between various officials in the original inquest is a significant claim that requires further substantiation. Overall, the factual claims align well with known historical events and current developments, but the absence of detailed evidence supporting the new allegations slightly diminishes the article's verifiability.

The article presents a balanced view by highlighting both the official narrative of Luthuli's accidental death and the alternative perspective of potential foul play. It includes statements from prosecutors and Luthuli's family, providing a range of viewpoints. However, the piece could improve by incorporating more perspectives from independent experts or historians. The focus is primarily on the prosecutorial viewpoint and the family's reaction, leaving out any potential defense or clarification from those accused of collusion. This imbalance could lead to a perception of bias towards the new inquest's narrative.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a coherent narrative of the events leading to the reopening of the inquest. The language is straightforward, making the complex legal and historical issues accessible to a general audience. However, some terms such as 'collusion' and 'inquest' might need further explanation for readers unfamiliar with legal jargon. The piece maintains a neutral tone, which aids in clarity, though some sections could benefit from additional details to enhance reader comprehension.

The article references the National Prosecuting Authority and Luthuli's family as primary sources, which are credible given their direct involvement in the case. However, the lack of direct quotes from independent legal experts or historians limits the depth of source quality. The absence of attribution to specific documents or evidence underpinning the new claims also detracts from the article's reliability. While the sources used are authoritative, the article would benefit from a broader range of voices to enhance its credibility.

The article provides a basic overview of the context surrounding the reopening of the inquest, but it lacks detailed explanations of the new evidence or the legal process involved. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, which could help readers understand any biases in the sources. Additionally, the methodology behind the prosecutors' claims of collusion is not elaborated upon, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the basis for these assertions. More transparency regarding the sources of the new evidence and the motivations behind the reopening would improve the article's transparency.