When adults interact with children in different spaces, it is worth remembering that their interactions are based on a duty to act based on a special relationship.

This duty of care is based on a special relationship because of children’s ages, limited experiences and vulnerabilities. These variables put together, demand of the adults the need to protect and safeguard children from injurious situations.

This opinion piece has been motivated by what happened in Gweru on June 10, 2026, at Chirandu Business Centre where a combi carrying about 23-24 primary school pupils from Matongo and Stanley primary schools went up in flames due to a 10- litre jerry can of petrol placed close to the battery compartment.

The fuel ignited while the vehicle was in motion, causing an explosion and fire.

Seven children died in the inferno.Sad. Zimbabwe buried seven children last week. Seven. Not statistics. Not headlines we scroll past. Seven futures ended in flames just like that.

The 64-million-dollar questions at the back of our minds should be, “Who has a duty of care towards children?” and “What are the obligations and duties of those with the duty of care towards children?” In response to the above questions, state and non -actors have a duty of care towards children and this duty of care is based on a special relationship, statute and contract.

Arguably, we cannot accept “accidents happen” when it comes to our children. Strict liability. Accidents happen where systems fail. And our school transport system is failing.

So, we write this opinion piece not just to mourn but to demand eight (8) changes that must happen now in every school that has an arrangement of ferrying learners:Put a safeguarding officer on every school bus /combiWe have teachers to monitor learning.

We need officers to monitor safety. Their job: count heads, stop overloading, check speed and speak up when drivers take risks. One responsible adult focused only on the children could have forced that combi to stop, to check, to wait.

Capacity and speed kill more children than fire does. A Safeguarding Officer can either be a Social Worker, a Community Psychologist or any person who has a background in child protection and safeguarding. Safeguarding is spending to save; hence this recommendation should not be viewed as a drain on the school’s budget.

As a matter of national policy, every school should have Safeguarding Officers commensurate with its size to cut down on incidents occasioned by negligence by either omission or commission.

Make child protection training compulsory for all drivers and conductorsA driver with 30 children is not just driving-he or she is acting in loco parentis. He or she has a duty of care based on a contract, statute and special relationship.

He or she needs basic training on how children panic and on how to evacuate them calmly. Transport operators must partner with the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare in conjunction with the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education to certify this training.

The training menu may involve defence driving, vehicle safety checks, emergency response, child protection awareness, passenger management, communication skills, legal compliance, hazardous materials awareness, stress and fatigue management, ethics and accountability.

These aspects ensure drivers and conductors are not just technically competent, but also child-sensitive, compliant and ethically responsible.Fire safety gear, checked monthly.

Every school vehicle must carry a working extinguisher, smoke alarm and emergency hammer. VID and school boards should log monthly checks. In a fire, 20 seconds is the difference between escape and tragedy. Gear we don’t test is gear we don’t have.

The Zimbabwe Republic Police should also be the wheel in the machine here, as they should compel all transporters of school children to produce the requisite safeguards for the transportation of school children.

End overloading -seats only, no exceptionsStanding passengers cannot apply to children. The law must cap capacity at the number of seats, with heavy fines and licence suspensions for violations.

If a Safeguarding Officer was on board, overloading would end tomorrow. The presence of a Safeguarding Officer discourages negligence, since drivers and conductors would fear penalties and dismissal.Speed governors +GPS trackingMost combi fires start from mechanical stress caused by speeding.

Make speed governors compulsory on all school transport. Heads of schools and parents should have access to GPS data. Speeding routes should trigger instant warnings.

Teach children how to escape Children freeze. Smoke confuses them. Schools and operators must run termly evacuation drills. Every child should know two exits blindfolded.

We practice fire drills in classrooms-we must practice them in vehicles too. Tougher roadworthiness for school routesA combi carrying children should face stricter VID inspections than a commuter taxi.

No bald tyres. No illegal wiring. No jerry cans of fuel inside, If it’s not safe enough for the minister’s child, its not safe enough for ours. Publish investigation results within 30 days.

After every incident, parents deserve answers. What failed: the driver, the vehicle, the inspector, the ZRP? Public reports force accountability. Silence breeds repeated tragedies.

Seven desks sit empty today. Seven families will never be whole again. But the thousands of children who still board combis tomorrow can come home safely if we act.

Government, operators, schools, parents: this is our shared duty. Let these seven (7) children be the last we lose to a preventable fire. Let their names be the reason every other child gets home.

By Dr. Nicholas Aribino -Country Director, Law student, Part-time lecturer in Inclusive Education, Child Safeguarding and the Law, Gender Studies, and Special Needs Education and & Sheperd Chuma-Former Lecturer at college of education and now part-time university lecturer.

By Tafadzwa Gonye (Community Psychology Intern with Allied Health Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe)Zimbabwe’s Prisons and Correctional Service Act of 2023 arrives with the promise of reform, shifting the country’s correctional philosophy from punishment to rehabilitation. On paper, it is a progressive step forward. But from a community psychology perspective, the real question is not what happens inside prison walls, but what happens between prisons and the communities people come from and return to.Rehabilitation Is a Community ProcessThe Act rightly emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration. It recognizes that offenders are not beyond reform and that correctional services should prepare individuals for life after incarceration. However, community psychology teaches us that rehabilitation does not occur in isolation. People are shaped by their environments—families, neighbourhoods, economic systems, and social networks. Without addressing these broader conditions, prisons risk becoming revolving doors.Consider a young man from Epworth who is released after serving time for theft. He returns to the same overcrowded shelter, the same lack of work, and neighbours who view him with suspicion. According to a 2022 report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, more than sixty percent of former inmates struggle to find formal employment within two years of release, and many turn to petty crime again. While the Act introduces structured correctional processes, it does not go far enough in institutionalising community-based rehabilitation systems. Where are the strong linkages with local authorities, churches, NGOs, and community groups that can support reintegration?The Missing Voice of the CommunityA key principle in community psychology is participation—the idea that people affected by social systems should have a voice in shaping them. Yet the Act remains largely state-centred. Communities are positioned as passive recipients of returning offenders, rather than active partners in the rehabilitation process. There is limited provision for community consultation in reintegration planning, victim-offender mediation at the local level, or community-driven alternatives to incarceration. This gap risks reinforcing stigma and fear instead of building collective responsibility for safety and healing.What would genuine community participation look like? It would mean, for example, that before an inmate is released, a local committee comprising a village head, a church leader, a representative from a women’s group, and a former offender sits down with the prisoner and a social worker to agree on a support plan. This is not a radical idea. In parts of Matabeleland South, similar community re-entry circles have been tried informally, with promising results.Human Rights and Dignity: A Strong FoundationTo its credit, the Act strengthens protections for human rights, promoting dignity, fairness, and due process within correctional facilities. Provisions ensuring legal representation, fair hearings, and procedural justice reflect constitutional values. From a community psychology lens, this is essential. Systems that treat individuals with dignity are more likely to foster prosocial identity change, which is critical for reducing reoffending. But dignity must extend beyond prison. Former inmates often face rejection, unemployment, and social exclusion—factors strongly linked to recidivism.Structural Inequality: The Root Cause ProblemCommunity psychology places strong emphasis on social justice and structural determinants of behaviour. Crime is often linked to poverty, unemployment, substance abuse, and marginalisation. While the Act addresses offender management, it is largely silent on how correctional services will collaborate with other sectors—such as health, education, and social welfare—to tackle these root causes. Without integrated responses, youth in marginalised communities remain at risk, substance abuse cycles continue, and economic exclusion fuels reoffending. A meaningful reform would require, for instance, a formal memorandum of understanding between the Prisons Service and the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare to create employment pathways for released offenders.Reintegration without Support Is Reintegration in Name OnlyThe Act gestures toward reintegration, but aftercare systems remain underdeveloped. Successful reintegration requires employment pathways, psychosocial support, family reunification programmes, and community acceptance initiatives. Without these, individuals released from prison are often set up to fail. Community psychology would argue for localised reintegration ecosystems—communitybased structures that provide continuous support before and after release. For example, a neighbourhood reintegration hub could offer counselling, skills matching, and a weekly support group, staffed by a trained social worker and volunteers from the community.Drawing on Zimbabwe’s Own TraditionsOne resource the Act overlooks is Zimbabwe’s rich heritage of communal justice and mutual support. Traditional practices such as the dare (a community court where elders mediate disputes) and nhimbe (collective work parties where neighbours help one another) embody values of restoration, accountability, and belonging. These systems, still alive in many rural and even urban areas, could be adapted to support correctional goals. Imagine a former offender being required to perform community service under the oversight of a dare of elders, or a nhimbe being organised to rebuild a victim’s damaged property. Such culturally grounded approaches carry less stigma and greater local ownership than purely staterun programmes. The law should explicitly allow for partnerships with traditional leaders and customary systems.Concrete Steps toward a CommunityCentred SystemZimbabwe’s new Act is an important starting point. To become truly transformative, it must evolve from a correctional system to a communitycentred system. I propose three practical, lowcost steps that could be implemented within existing budgets. First, mandate a community liaison officer at each prison whose sole responsibility is to build relationships with local councils, churches, and NGOs before an inmate is released. Second, require a prerelease home assessment conducted by a social worker together with a family member, to identify housing, mental health, and employment needs. Third, pilot restorative justice circles in two provinces—one rural and one urban—using trained facilitators and drawing on dare principles, with official recognition from the courts.Conclusion: Reform Must Go Beyond the Prison GateThe 2023 Act signals progress, but real reform will not be measured by policy language alone. It will be measured by whether communities are safer, whether former offenders are successfully reintegrated, and whether cycles of crime are broken. From a community psychology perspective, the message is clear: you cannot rehabilitate individuals without transforming the communities they belong to. Until Zimbabwe bridges that gap—by giving communities a voice, investing in aftercare, and drawing on its own traditions of mutual support—the promise of the new Prisons Act will remain only partially fulfilled.