The Sunday Mail
Schools are slowly becoming breeding grounds for rowdiness following a High Court ruling that outlawed corporal punishment and canning as a way of disciplining juvenile offenders, critics of the law have said.
Corporal punishment was abolished early this year after High Court Judge, Justice Ester Muremba, ruled that the practice was outlawed in terms of Sections 167(3) and 175(1) of the Constitution.
Justice Muremba was reviewing a lower court sentence on a 15-year-old boy who was sentenced to moderate corporal punishment of three strokes with a rattan cane for raping a 14-year-old girl.
The landmark ruling was, however, provisionally set aside by the Constitutional Court as Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku cited the need for the court to hear opposing arguments before handing down a judgment.
Critics, therefore, rapped the handling of the matter saying the setting aside of the High Court judgment has caused confusion.
Those who harbour this view argue the development was not as widely publicised as the original ruling, thereby sending wrong signals to children.
The uncertainty has also triggered fears that parents and teachers will not be allowed to beat naughty children at home or at school.
In the wake of such developments, some teacher organisations and parents have called for the Constitutional Court to permanently uphold corporal punishment.
Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) president, Dr Takavafira Zhou, said indiscipline has been increasing rapidly in schools since the ban was announced, thereby affecting the quality of education.
Parents also complain that some of their children have become stubborn and disobedient. Among the purported cases of indiscipline is denigration of teachers, skipping of lessons, bullying and abuse of drugs.
As a solution, Dr Zhou proposed a closely monitored disciplinary system to ensure that children are not abused while being handed corporal punishments.
“Schools have become playgrounds for nuisance because students are no longer afraid of breaking rules. We have received numerous reports of gross indiscipline in schools, especially those in rural areas since the judgment was made. We are having cases of headmasters who are failing to control schools due to indiscipline,” he said.
“The sad thing is that the setting aside of the High Court judgment was not as publicised as the ruling itself so we have people who still have the wrong information out there.
“As an organisation we say corporal punishment should stay but must be done in a disciplinary manner and not (out of) cruelty.”
Some people who were interacting on social media platforms castigated any law that prohibits them from disciplining their children.
One Wailer said the only way to deal with juvenile delinquency was to hold on to corporal punishment.
“We are born in a world of culture my friend. The basic principle to our own culture is to respect your mother and father. That respect will not come into place without proper discipline. Look at those countries who claim to be champions of human rights, what is happening to their younger generation?
“The crime rate is very high, family values and love is gone, all because of a law that says you should not discipline your own child. The Bible says, spare the rod and spoil the child.
“I will say this to you, continue to spoil these kids, and you will see what breed of generation you will have created for this country. Principles, values and discipline need to be instilled in a child. If you fail to control your child with tantrums, that child will cause mayhem to other people and children in the society.”
Deputy Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, Professor Paul Mavima, said teachers are not allowed to beat up children, saying those who are found wanting will face disciplinary action.
“As a Ministry, corporal punishment is a big no and our advice is that teachers should not beat up children, rather they should take other measures of disciplining them,” he said.
“Only school heads can hand corporal punishment and not anyone else and the heads know the procedure of doing it.”
Zimbabwe Teachers Association (Zimta) president, Mr Richard Gundani, last week told journalists on the sidelines of the association’s 34th annual national conference that corporal punishment infringed on physical and psychological integrity of children.
“Zimta, through its departments and offices, has noted that corporal punishment is still rife and prevalent in schools across the country,” he said.
“We are concerned that many people believe that corporal punishment is an African and Zimbabwean method of child discipline. At the same time we are concerned about the number of teachers facing disciplinary action as a result of inflicting corporal punishment on children.
“We call for non-violent ways of disciplining children and respect their physical and psychological integrity, which are more likely to set children on the path toward healthy productive and law-abiding adulthood.”
Dean of Education at the University of Zimbabwe, Dr Oswell Hapanyengwi, says corporal punishment was once abolished but was re-introduced after cases of indiscipline became rife in schools.
“In fact, in Zimbabwe corporal punishment was abolished in 1982. The Government had to reverse this decision in 1985 as cases of pupils bullying teachers escalated, resulting in the deterioration of classroom discipline.
“But then the Government stipulates who and under what circumstances corporal punishment should be administered and teachers were denied the use of the cane. Hence, in schools we find an atmosphere of laxity and carefree attitude among teachers as well as among the pupils. This is because the teachers feel disempowered, they feel they are not trusted to do their job adequately.”
Elsewhere, 31 nations have fully banned corporal punishment with Sweden being the first to make it illegal to strike a child as a form of discipline in 1979. About 70 more nations have specific laws that prohibit corporal punishment in schools.
In the United States, there are partial bans depending on either the location or the age of the child.
