[Photo: Supplied]
Two student leaders have urged lawmakers to reject a constitutional clause that could allow adults to hit children in the name of discipline.
Vitukawalu told the committee that the issue was not simply about disciplining children, but about whether the country’s highest law could leave room for adults to justify hurting them.
William Cross Primary School Head Girl Finau Vitukawalu and Jai Narayan College Deputy Head Girl Hevron Nimatavou have called for the removal of Section 40(1)(e) of the 2026 Constitution Amendment Bill.
Appearing before the Special Committee, the two student leaders questioned how allowing lawful and moderate chastisement could protect children’s rights to safety and dignity.
Article continues after advertisement
“Those are big words for a child, but what worries me is simple. Will adults be allowed to hit us and say it is for our own good? I want my constitution to protect me. I don’t want it to give anyone an excuse to hurt me.”
Citing Fiji’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in 1993, Vitukawalu referred to protections against violence and the requirement for school discipline to respect human dignity.
She argued that children who misbehave need guidance and consequences, not physical punishment, and challenged parents to take responsibility for their children’s behaviour rather than leaving teachers to compensate for a lack of discipline at home.
Her warning was direct: “You hit us, we will grow up and hit others.”
Nimatavou, a Year 12 student, argued that Section 40(1)(e) sends conflicting messages by protecting people from violence and inhumane treatment while allowing physical punishment for correction.
She questioned how chastisement could be measured consistently and where the law would draw the line between discipline and abuse.
“Fiji does not need corporal punishment. What Fiji needs is good shepherding, disciplined families and responsible parents.”
Both students urged lawmakers to remove the provision entirely, arguing that children’s protection must not depend on how adults interpret the limits of acceptable punishment.
They made comments during the committee’s appearance at the CMF Plaza yesterday.