A document detailing children's rights infractions

This document is not yet finished. It needs more specific details and lists of infractions. If you have any testimony to add, please post in comments. The full version of THE LAW OF THE CHILD (TZ 2009) is available at:

http://www.aclr.info/index.php/national-legislation/legislation-acts/535-law-of-the-child-act-tanzania.html

HISANI CENTRE FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

VS.

THE LAW OF THE CHILD

The information I have gathered comes from a variety of sources including past employees, volunteers, sponsors, and children at Hisani Centre for Women and Children's Rights hereinafter referred to as Hisani. All can be proved through testimony of the original source. Some information also has supporting documents.

I find that those parties involved in this issue include:

All staff and employees of the Department of Social Welfare for the region of Mwanza whether elected, appointed, or hired

Mr. Marklaud Kanyambo - founding member of Hisani

Mr. Frednand Fredrick - founding member and acting Director of Hisani

Miss Grace (Angel) Peter - founding member of Hisani

Mrs. Donatha John - founding member of Hisani

Mr. Stiadia Nestory - founding member of Hisani

Mrs. Florida Atusi - founding member of Hisani

Mr. Josephat Nganyizi - founding member of Hisani

Mrs. Kemia Christopher - founding member of Hisani

Mrs. Abelo Bubelwa - founding member of Hisani

Mr. Pikius Nyemeani - founding member of Hisani

Mrs. Florida William - founding member of Hisani

Mr. Bashiru Rashid - founding member of Hisani

Mrs. Christina Josephat - founding member of Hisani

While other laws and aspects of the Constitution of The United Republic of Tanzania may apply to this issue, this letter focuses only on congruency and non-congruency with the Law of the Child, 2009.

Only points pertaining to the issue are listed.

*******************************************************

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 4.2

The best interest of a child shall be the primary consideration in all actions concerning a child whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts or administrative bodies.

The parties implicated here are the board members of Hisani, as a private social welfare institution as well as the local Department of Social welfare.

I find that these parties did not act in the best interest of the child, nor were they trying to. The children living at Hisani since its inception have suffered from a poor medical attention, limited diet, and a harsh institutional environment. Most of the original children were the biological children of founding members of Hisani. It is obvious that the members of the board sent their own children away from the comfort of their home and family to live in an institution for the purposes of soliciting donations under false pretenses. So it is the fault of the board members and parents of the children for not only ignoring the best interest of a child but acting contrary to it. It is the fault of the local Department of Social Welfare for not monitoring this issue and stopping it for the sake of the children.

***********************************************************

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 5.2

A person shall not discriminate against a child on the grounds of gender, race, age, religion, language, political opinion, disability, health status, custom, ethnic origin, rural or urban background, birth, socio-economic status, being a refugee or of other status.

This point concerns the board members of Hisani because they are ultimately responsible for the safety and rights of the children under the care of their organization. There was a disabled boy named Emmanuel living at Hisani since before the first time I visited in 2005. He fled Hisani because he was being treated with disrespect and cruelty because of his physical disabilities. One former employee described the way he was fed porridge as inhumane, as it was merely poured down his throat without regard for the temperature of the food. He often suffered from a burnt throat because of this.

Another discriminatory act at Hisani is that the children who are directly related to the founding members are in much higher standing than the other children. The children who are not related to the members are beaten more severely, made to do more manual labour and are subjected to more psychologically damaging humiliation. Thus they are discriminated against under the category of birth. There are also reports that children whose parents are paying money to Frednand Fredrick are treated better than those who are unable to pay. This is a blatant example of socio-economic discrimination.

*********************************************

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 7.1

A child shall be entitled to live with his parents or guardians.

Part II, subsection a, paragraph7.2

A person shall not deny a child the right to live with his parents, guardian or family and to grow up in a caring and peaceful environment unless it is decided by the court that living with his parents or family shall -

(a) lead a significant harm to the child;

(b) subject the child to serious abuse; or

(c) not be in the best interest of the child.

As with the first point, this paragraph implicates the board members and parents of the children involved. Some of the children that have been made to live away from their parents in a poorly supervised environment (of up to 100 children and only one teacher to care for them) are the following:

Nelson, Rose, Rocta and Castro - Children of Mr. Marklaud Kanyambo

Anette - Daughter of Mrs. Donatha John

Steven, Clinton and Elina - Chidren of Mr. Stiadia Nestory

Matungwa - son of Mrs. Florida Atusi

Eric – son of Josephat Nganyizi

Edgar, Crispen, Anita and Evodus - Children of Mrs. Kemia Christopher

Christina - Daughter of Mr. Pikius Nyemeani

This list is not exhaustive. These are only the children of the members of the Board of Hisani that have been sent to live in an orphanage without regard to the Law of the Child. None of the 3 points made in the law in paragraph 7.2 have been found in court, therefore the children should be in the care of their parents. In fact, by sending their children to Hisani centre for "children’s rights" they are putting them in an environment that puts them at risk to be subjected to the type of negative impacts that the paragraph outlines.

Some of the children that have been sent to live away from their parents that are not the biological children of board members of Hisani are:

Judith, Erik, Johnathan, Vai, Anitha, Eloy Nickson, Joyven John, Joyless, Joshua, Juanita, Baraka, Nelson, Frank, Huruma, Patrick James, Mlokozi, Justin Kishweko,

There is a list of all children who have lived at Lukobe, another location of the same NGO and Hisani who have parents and the various ways they came to live in an orphanage. Most of the children who have parents are related to the members of the board of Hisani.

*********************************************************************

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 8.2

A person shall not deprive a child access to education, immunization, food, clothing, shelter, health and medical care or any other thing required for his development.

In March of 2010, one physically and mentally disabled boy named Marwa died at Bugando Hospital in Mwanza. The child died from malaria. In a fully funded, large scale institution for a child to die of something that is so easily treated is a travesty. Marwa was sick for over a week before he was taken to the local KKT clinic which gives Hisani children free medical care. As there was no money necessary, making the child wait to be examined was obvious neglect and deprivation described in this paragraph. After being examined at the clinic, the doctor/medical officer suggested that the child be taken immediately to Bugando hospital, where they were more equipped to help him in his already frail condition. Frednand Fredrick and Grace Peter ignored the advice of the doctor and took the child back to the orphanage where he suffered for five more days until someone who is not on the board nor an employee of the orphanage took him to the district hospital. There the child died after two days. Frednand Fredrick then arranged for the body to be buried quickly without funeral and without disclosing to his loved ones the location of the grave. There are many other cases of such neglect, especially deprivation of medical attention, but this is the worst and most significant because a child died that might have lived.

****************************************************

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 8.5

A person shall not treat a child with disabilities in an undignified manner.

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 8.6

A child with disabilities shall be entitled to special care, treatment, affordable facilities for his rehabilitation and equal opportunities to education and training wherever possible to develop his maximum potential and be self-reliance.

The two disabled children that were living at Hisani are named Marwa and Emmanuel. They both suffered under the harsh regime of the institution, not given special care by staff, merely left for the other children to care for. These two special children often smelled of their own waste as it was young children that tried to carry them to and from the toilet. Many of the volunteers at Hisani tried to help Marwa become stronger and develop muscle tone so that his fragile body could learn to support his own weight. Under medical advice a strategy was formed that consisted of a higher protein diet and physical therapy style exercises. The staff and Directors at Hisani took no interest in the continued health of the young boy, so when the volunteers left no one continued the program. I believe that testimony from Emmanuel will help to bring the facts of this issue to light.

Document is unfinished at this time. Further notes will be made on how actions of the board and Directors of Hisani Centre for Women and Children’s Rights contradicted The Law of the Child under the following categories:

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 9.1

A child shall have the right to life, dignity, respect, leisure, liberty, health, education and shelter from his parents.

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 9.2

The right to leasure and liberty by the child shall be subject to guidance and ability of a parent, guardian or relative.

Part II, subsection a, paragraph 9.3

Every parent shall have duties and responsibilities whether imposed by law or otherwise towards his child which include the duty to-

(a) protect the child from neglect, discrimination, violence, abuse, exposure to physical and moral hazards and oppression;

(b) provide guidance, care, assistance and maintenance for the child

********************************************

11. A child shall have a right of opinion and no person shall deprive a child capable of forming views the right to express an opinion, to be listened to and to participate in decisions which affect his well-being.

12. A person shall not employ or engage a child in any activity that may be harmful to his health, education, mental, physical or moral development.

13.-(1) A person shall not subject a child to torture, or other cruel, inhuman punishment or degrading treatment including any cultural practice which dehumanizes or is injurious to the physical and mental well-being of a child.

(3) The term "degrading treatment" as used in this section means an act done to a child with the intention of humiliating or lowering his dignity.

14. A person who contravenes any provision of this Part, commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Part IV

33.-(1) A person shall not publish any information or a photograph that may lead to the identification of a child in any matter before the court except with the permission of the court.

(2) Any person who publishes any information or photograph contrary to this section commits an offence and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not less than two million shillings and not more than fifteen million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.

Part VII Subsection a

78.-( 1) A person shall not employ or engage a child in any kind of exploitative labour.

(3) Labour shall be considered exploitative if -

(a) it deprives the child of his health or development;

(b) it exceeds six hours a day;

(c) it is inappropriate to his age; or

(d) the child receives inadequate remuneration.

(4) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than one hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term of three months or to both.

79.-(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 78, the child shall not be employed or engaged in a contract of the service performance which shall require a child to work at night.

(2) "Night work" shall be construed to constitute work performance of which requires the child to be at work between the hours of twenty hours in the evening and six o'clock in the morning.

(3) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than one hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term of three months or to both.

80.-(1) Any person who induces, procures, demands or imposes forced labour to a child, commits an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "forced labour" includes bonded labour or any other work exacted from a person under the threat of a penalty but shall not include work that forms part of the normal civic obligations, minor communal services performed by the members of a community in the direct interest of that community.

(3) Ay person who contravenes any of the provision of this section commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than two hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term of six months or to both.

81.-( 1) A child has a right to be paid remuneration equal to the value of the work done.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, any employer who contravenes the provisions of this section commits an offence.

82.-(1) It shall be unlawful to employ or engage a child in any hazardous work.

(3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine of not less than one million shillings and not more than five hundred million shilling or to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than twenty years or to both.