IN the days of yore corporal punishment formed an integral part of school programmes geared towards the discipline of a child and the total inculcation in him a sense of loyalty, dedication to duties and obligations to the school and the society generally.
Canning, kneeling down and other impositions were easily handy for the teachers to correct an erring child.
Similarly, Masters who bring up apprentices usually inflict blows or other form of corrective measures on their apprentices to make them sit up.
Even parents and guardians are not left out in applying some physical corrective measures against a child or ward who deserves such measures.
What could be gleaned from the above is that discipline via some physical control of a child is sometimes needed to correct an offending or disobedient child or ward and prevent a repletion of such offence. The correction for all intents and purposes however, can never be unreasonably inflicted or extend to wound or grievous harm.
Today, the issue of corporal punishment both in school and at family setting has considerably waned as many feel that it is archaic, barbaric, wicked and uncivilised. Even in schools, some parents at the slightest application of physical correctional measures to their children or wards, by school masters or more often than not, unleash severe attacks on the teachers.
Some may even lock up the teacher in detention facilities without any formal charge brought against the victim.
This resort to putting the offending teacher under false imprisonment and deprivation of personal liberty to many seems justifiable especially when the teacher has demonstrated unmitigated rascality and insensitivity to the well being of the child.
One of such cases of extreme cruelty, insensitivity and barbaric act for instance played out in one of the states of the federation when a secondary school student was flogged to death by a teacher in the name of enforcing discipline or correction on the student.
What really is the position the law on corporal punishment? Is it lawful to administer corporal punishment in school and or at family unit? To what extent is corporal punishment justifiable?
Section 295 of the criminal code Act in providing answers to the above questions clearly stipulates thus: “A blow or other force not in any case extending to a wound or grievous harm , may be justified for the purpose of correction as follows:
(1) a Father or Mother may correct his or her legitimate or illegitimate child being under sixteen years of age, or any guardian or person acting as a guardian his ward, being under sixteen years of age for misconduct or disobedience to lawful command
(2) a Master may correct his servant or apprentice, being under sixteen years of age for misconduct or defaults in his duty as such servant or apprentice”
This power of the parent guardian or a person acting as a guardian to correct a child under the law is permissible to be delegated to another person entrusted with the temporary or permanent custody or governance of the child and this delegation is presumed to have been granted until expressly withdrawn in case of a school master in respect of a child or ward.
For the avoidance of doubt, Sub- section 4 of section 295 (Supra) states “A Father or Mother or a guardian or a person acting as a guardian may delegate to any person whom he or she entrusts permanently or temporarily with the governance or custody of his or her child or ward all his or her own authority for correction, including the power to determine in what cases correction ought to be inflicted and such a delegation shall be presumed, except in so far as it may be expressly withheld, in the case of a school teacher in respect of a child or ward”
From the above, it is crystal clear that school masters, guardians or any person acting as a guardian not only have power to inflict correctional measures on a child ,ward or servant under their custody but the presumed power to determine in what circumstances such correctional measures should be applied with respect to such child or ward.
It is important to note that this power can be delegated by person so authorized to inflict correction may in any particular case delegate same to any fit and proper person. See (5) Supra.
It is also not in doubt that a parent or guardian may withdraw such power to inflict correction on a child or ward respectively and until this is done expressly the presumption that such power has been delegated to the school master or a person acting as a school master with regards to a child or ward.
The question that directly and naturally follows is who is a child? For this purpose, the criminal code talks of one being under the age of sixteen years while the child’s Right Act says “child means a person under the age of eighteen years”
Again Children and Young Persons law says Child means a person under the age of fourteen years”
For the purpose of corporal punishments in school with respect to children and wards it is safer to see a child as one under the age of sixteen years.
As has earlier been observed the power to inflict corporal punishment is not absolute as the father, mother or guardian can withdraw such rights and the withdrawal must be made expressly.
A parent or guardian therefore does not need to resort to physical showdown or self -help against a school master for inflicting correction on a child or ward especially when such correction does not fall within the degree or description of a wound or grievous harm.
It is a different matter however, if the blow or force applied is unjustified by either resulting into a wound or grievous harm or when it is not for the purpose of correction of the child or ward.
In such insensitive application of force, it is submitted that such erring school master may face a charge bordering on assault occasioning harm punishable with three years imprisonment. See section 355 of the Criminal Code act. The offender may also face 25 years jail term or even capital punishment if the injury result to death. See 8 (1) and (2) Anti -Torture Act 2017.
All these can however be avoided by any parent or guardian who loathes corporal punishment by consulting a Lawyer for advice on how to withdraw the presumed delegation of power to correct the child or ward from the custodian of the child or ward.
Schoolmasters should also always act within the ambit of the law. They must operate on the province of the law that no correction can be justified if it is unreasonable in kind and degree, regard being had to the age and physical and mental condition of the child or ward. Neither will any correction be justified if by reason of tender age, the victim is incapable of understanding the purpose for which it is inflicted.
