Teacher savages primary school pupil
RETHABILE MOHONO
MAFETENG – A seventh-grade pupil at King’s Gate Primary School has been hospitalised following a shocking incident of corporal punishment allegedly inflicted by his teacher, whose identity is known to Public Eye, last Tuesday.
The learner, whose identity remains confidential since he is a minor, endured severe physical abuse, resulting in critical injuries that required a two-day hospital stay. The incident reportedly began when the pupil, along with two classmates, failed to complete their classroom assignments.
In a drastic response, the irate teacher took the learner outside and subjected him to harsh punishment. According to the pupil’s mother, whose name has also been withheld to protect the identity of the assaulted son, the teacher’s actions were not only physical but also involved extreme emotional distress.
Relentless assault
The mother said her son described the ordeal as a relentless series of beatings, not just a single instance of punishment. She said her child recounted being struck repeatedly on his back and buttocks while being locked between the teacher’s thighs to prevent him from escaping.
In a moment of desperation, her son seized a hosepipe and threw it, prompting the teacher to retaliate by hitting him across the face. “The assault continued until my son was struggling to breathe,” the mother said. “At that point, the teacher pressed his chest to the ground with his foot, making it even harder for him to breathe.”
The boy requested permission to use the restroom but the teacher refused realising the severity of the situation, insisting that the boy was in too dangerous a condition to be allowed to go alone. The teacher then accompanied him to the restroom.
Upon returning from the restroom, the boy was taken back to the classroom, where he was subjected to further whipping and slapping during lunch break.
After enduring this continued punishment, the victim informed his mother that a fellow learner had tried to intervene and seek forgiveness on his behalf.
However, the teacher harshly told the second learner to stay out of it. The victim had to endure the mistreatment for the rest of the day until he returned home. His mother then took him to the principal, who lives in the same village.
“The principal appeared shocked by the situation,” the mother recalled. “She instructed me to arrange a meeting with her and the teacher the following day at school.” The mother also noted that this incident was not the first time her child had been subjected to such severe treatment.
“During the winter term, my child came home with a swollen hand, crying that the same teacher had beaten him. I did not take it too seriously at the time; I simply bandaged his hand, and he returned to school as if nothing had happened. Now, given what has transpired, I realise this teacher’s animosity has been growing for some time, right under our noses,” she said.
The following day, as her child struggled to breathe and walk, the mother contacted the principal about the matter.
Internal bleeding
“I took my son to hospital where the nurses informed me that his condition was critical due to some internal bleeding. They said he needed to be admitted for further evaluation to prevent any additional harm,” she explained.
Doctors confirmed that a thorough examination was necessary, and he was admitted for two days before being discharged on the third day. The mother expressed frustration that, despite the severity of the situation, the teacher had not provided any explanation.
“When I met the principal on Wednesday to explain my son’s condition, all she said was that she was ‘ashamed and still shocked by the situation,’” the mother recounted. She noted that the principal repeatedly mentioned how ‘the school and the board are ashamed and sorry for what happened to her child.’
On Thursday, the principal reached out to inquire about her child’s condition in hospital. The mother informed her that he remained admitted. The principal then told the mother that the teacher wished to meet with her, a request the mother declined, stating her unwillingness to see the teacher.
“The principal later visited to check on my child and asked about the hospital bill, to which I replied that it had not yet been issued,” she said.
The mother also noted that the Ministry of Education had recommended counselling for her child, who has since been attending sessions for the past two days. She remarked that the support from the Ministry of Education managers has been more substantial than the assistance provided by the school.
“The problem now is that I lack information regarding my child’s safety upon returning to school as the teacher in question has only been suspended from teaching but remains on campus.
“My child is apprehensive about being in the same environment as this teacher, which raises significant concerns for us,” she said, adding that she is dissatisfied with the school’s failure to address the disruption caused by the teacher, especially since her child is preparing for final examinations in October.
“Consequently, I do not feel at ease with my child returning to school while the teacher is still present on the premises,” she said.
When asked if she reported the matter to the police, the mother confirmed that she did, and the police are currently investigating the issue. Police spokesperson Mpiti Mopeli, yesterday said his office is yet to receive the report.
King’s Gate Primary School principal Mateboho Masiu said they are not in a position to comment on the matter as it is currently being handled by the Ministry of Education. “The whole issue is now in the hands of the ministry as the employer,” she said.
District Education Manager, ’Mahlompho Shabe, said yesterday they were informed by the school about it and the board was set to meet last night to get to the bottom of the issue.
She added that the teacher was told not to attend classes last week to facilitate investigations. However, she was quick to note this was not a suspension of the teacher as there are some legal considerations. Shabe added that as the ministry they are taking the child through counselling sessions and are also organising counselling for some Grade 1 pupils who witnessed the incident.
Several former pupils who went through the same person’s tutelage said on Facebook they had gone through similar torture.
From a children’s rights perspective, the practice of corporal punishment violates fundamental human rights to dignity and physical integrity and the right to equal protection under the law. According to international human rights law, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other instruments declares that states are obligated to enact legislation prohibiting corporal punishment in all settings, including the home.
What the law says
However, in Lesotho, corporal punishment remains lawful despite recommendations to abolish it from the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Committee, and during the 1st cycle Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Lesotho in 2010 (which was accepted by the government).
In 2015, with the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the world committed to ending violence against children (SDG target 16.2) by 2030. With less than six years remaining, there is a need to accelerate efforts to eliminate corporal punishment, one of the most prevalent forms of violence.
According to Human Rights Lawyer Advocate Mamofuta Kale, children’s protection and welfare Act speaks about corporal punishment.
The act says corporal punishment appears to be unlawful in schools. Article 4 of the Education Act 2010 prohibits cruel punishment: “(4) A learner shall not be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.”
While this does not explicitly prohibit corporal punishment, the accompanying parliamentary statement of objects and reasons of the Education Act 2010 clarifies that one purpose of the law is to prohibit corporal punishment: “5. The Bill abolishes corporal punishment at schools in accordance with Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment.”
Article 22 of the Children’s Protection and Welfare Act 2011 states that the state has a duty “to formulate policies which will ensure… (k) that… school discipline is consistent with a child’s rights and dignity,” but it does not explicitly prohibit corporal punishment.
The government has reported to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child that “the Education Act 2010 and the MOET’s School Regulations abolish corporal punishment in schools.” 5 But we have yet to confirm that the provisions for “lawful and reasonable chastisement of children” in the Penal Code Act 2010 (art. 32) and for “justifiable” chastisement in the Children’s Protection and Welfare Act 2011 (art. 16) may not be used as a legal defence for the use of corporal punishment by teachers. The Teaching Service Regulations 2002 are silent on the issue.
“With this kind of corporal punishment, everyone could tell it was abuse.”
The rod and global trends
Corporal punishment is defined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light”.
It has traditionally been viewed as a normal, even necessary, part of raising children. However, research has confirmed that corporal punishment inflicts considerable harm on both children and societies as a whole.
Globally, many children still experience corporal punishment in their homes, schools, care settings, and penal systems. Estimates suggest that at least one billion children — that is, one in two — experience violent punishment every year. In some countries, nearly all children report regularly suffering violent punishment both at home and at school.
Over 50 years of research have found that corporal punishment is associated with a wide range of harmful consequences to children and no benefits. It causes direct physical harm, killing thousands of children each year and causing injury for many more. It is also strongly linked with poor mental health in childhood and later life, including increases in the chances of self-harm, suicide attempts, and addiction in adulthood.
Corporal punishment is also associated with impaired cognitive development, lower educational attainment, and higher school dropout. Finally, far from teaching children how to behave well, violent punishment increases aggression, anti-social behaviour, and perpetration and victimisation of violence.
According to the WHO, the detrimental impacts of violent punishment on individuals add up to considerable costs for society as a whole. The increased burden on health, mental health, child protection, and criminal justice services, wasted investment in education, and loss of human capital are vast.
One estimate suggests that all violence against children costs between 2-5% of global GDP annually, while the World Bank calculated that inaction on school violence, including corporal punishment, costs the world around US$11 trillion (nearly M200 trillion) in lost lifetime earnings.
Taken together, the prevalence, impacts, and costs of corporal punishment indicate that a preventative, public health approach is an urgent priority.
The WHO INSPIRE technical package presents effective interventions to prevent violent punishment of children, including the implementation and enforcement of laws to prohibit physical punishment; programmes to address child-rearing norms and values; support to develop nurturing, non-violent parenting; and interventions to build a positive violence-free school environment, among others.
Sixty-six UN Member States from across all regions and contexts have now prohibited all corporal punishment of children by law.
Moreover, countries that have taken comprehensive steps to prohibit and eliminate corporal punishment have demonstrated that it is preventable. When well implemented, prohibition is associated with significant reductions in the acceptance and use of corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children.
For example, in Germany in 1992, 30% of young people had been beaten. By 2002, two years after prohibition had been enacted, this had fallen to 3%. In Romania, children’s reports of severe violent punishment halved in the decade following prohibition.
“On the International Day to #EndCorporalPunishment, we approach the first Global Ministerial Conference to End Violence Against Children in Bogota, Colombia, this November. Let’s step up our commitment and action to end corporal punishment and keep our 2030 promise to children,” WHO reported.