The deputy prime minister’s office has taken a firm stance on the operation of private discipline camps in the country, raising serious concerns over children’s safety and the models of discipline being applied, which they say may be violating children’s rights.
The concerns raised by the Department of Social Welfare Services, centre on whether children placed in these camps are being housed in safe environments, exposed to appropriate rehabilitation methods and protected in line with the Child Protection and Welfare Act.
It was said that the increasing use of such camps by parents seeking behavioural correction for their children has outpaced oversight mechanisms, leaving critical gaps in regulation and accountability.
Government has also raised concern over the absence of a clear regulatory framework governing the establishment and operation of the discipline camps, with questions emerging over which authority licensed, monitors and enforces standards within these facilities.
Director of Social Welfare Services Mcusi Shongwe, said government was particularly concerned about the qualifications and backgrounds of individuals entrusted with the care and training of children in these facilities.
He noted that there is currently no clear verification system to confirm whether trainers are properly vetted, trained in child care or authorised to work.
Shongwe revealed possibilities of alarming cases where some individuals involved in these camps have criminal records, including convictions related to child abuse. He said this raises serious questions about the safety of children placed under their supervision and the integrity of the rehabilitation process.
He further pointed out that there are concerns that some trainers may themselves be engaging in behaviours they are meant to correct, including substance abuse. This, he said, undermines the credibility of the camps and poses additional risks to children who are already in vulnerable situations.
ALSO READ | DPM’s office investigating case of mall basement children
“You cannot correct a child while you are doing the same thing. We are also concerned whether their model is actually rehabilitating the child professionally, or if children are being exposed to something worse,” said Shongwe.
Beyond personnel, the DPM’s office is scrutinising the discipline models used in the camps, questioning whether they align with internationally accepted child protection and rehabilitation standards. Eswatini has adopted a positive discipline framework, which emphasises guidance, counselling and non-violent methods of correction.
However, Shongwe said they fear that some camps may be applying approaches that are inconsistent with these principles.
There are also concerns about the uniform application of training programmes across children of different ages and genders. Section 14 of the Child Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 states that a child must be protected from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and that discipline must be appropriate to the child’s age and condition.
Shongwe noted that boys and girls are often subjected to the same exercises, despite having different developmental and physiological needs.
He warned that such practices could expose children, particularly girls, to inappropriate or harmful activities.
According to Shongwe, the lack of tailored programmes raises the risk of long-term physical and psychological harm, especially where activities are not age-appropriate or professionally supervised. He said this further highlights the need for clear regulatory guidelines and enforcement mechanisms.
The office of the DPM has also questioned whether operators of discipline camps are adhering to the Child Protection and Welfare Act, which sets out standards for the care, protection and rehabilitation of children.
Concerns have been raised that some camps may be operating outside the provisions of the law, particularly in relation to children’s rights, safety standards and the requirement for professional oversight.
Shongwe said there should be a comprehensive checklist that will guide the operation of such facilities.
This checklist is expected to cover critical areas such as child safeguarding policies, staff vetting procedures, programme design, accommodation standards and compliance with national and international child protection frameworks.
Shongwe said such measures are necessary to ensure that all facilities dealing with children operate within clearly defined boundaries that prioritise the best interests of the child.
“We need to ensure that every structure dealing with children is guided by clear standards and accountability so that we do not end up violating the very rights we are meant to protect,” he said.
NOW READ | DPM warns: Stop violating young boys
He added that had operators initially engaged the DPM’s office, they would have been guided through the appropriate legal and operational procedures to ensure compliance.
The DPM’s office has resolved to convene a meeting involving relevant government departments and operators of discipline camps.
The aim is to establish a unified position, strengthen oversight and ensure that all interventions are aligned with the country’s child protection policies.
Shongwe have also indicated that assessments of affected children will be conducted to determine their wellbeing and provide necessary psychosocial support.
Regional social welfare offices have already begun collecting data to inform the process.
As the use of discipline camps continues to gain traction among parents, government maintains that any intervention involving children must be safe, lawful and centred on protecting their rights. The outcome of the planned engagements is expected to shape the future regulation of such facilities across Eswatini.
THE KEY AREAS OF THE LAW THAT MAY BE VIOLATED:
• Right to shelter and basic care – Section 13
The Act provides that every child has the right to basic needs, including adequate shelter, care and protection.
Concerns that children are housed in tents, often in remote bush settings, raise questions about whether these environments meet minimum standards for safe and appropriate accommodation.
• Discipline standards – Section 14
Section 14 provides that a child must be protected from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and that discipline must be appropriate to the child’s age and condition.
Reports of children being subjected to harsh physical drills, prolonged exposure to mud and strenuous activities regardless of age or gender raise concerns about whether such practices meet the threshold of appropriate and humane discipline.
• Protection from abuse and neglect – Section 16
Section 16 protects children from all forms of abuse, neglect and harmful practices.
Unverified reports of children being exposed to unsafe conditions, harsh treatment or placed under the supervision of unvetted individuals raise red flags around potential neglect or abuse.
• Establishment of recognised facilities – Section 182
Section 182 provides for the establishment of structured and recognised institutions such as probation hostels for child rehabilitation.
The emergence of informal camps operating outside this framework raises questions about legality, regulation and accountability.
• Regulated placement into institutions – Section 186
The Act requires that placement of a child into a rehabilitation facility such as a probation hostel be done through the Children’s Court, ensuring oversight and legality.
The practice of parents directly enrolling children into private camps outside formal legal processes raises concerns about compliance with this requirement.
• Aftercare and reintegration – Section 188 (b) (i) and (ii)
The Act provides for aftercare support, including supervision and reintegration mechanisms once a child leaves an institution.
The absence of structured follow-up systems in some camps raises concern about whether children receive the necessary support to sustain behavioural change.
• Best interests of the child principle – General Principle of the Act
The Act emphasises that all decisions affecting a child must prioritise their best interests.
Uniform treatment of boys and girls, regardless of age and developmental needs, and exposure to potentially harmful environments may conflict with this principle.
