Bullying at Igbinedion Education Centre: Is Edo State Choosing Punitive Justice Over Child Rights? A Legal and Child Safeguarding Perspective

With contributions from

Taiwo Akinlami

Safiyat Jibrin-Hamza

March 19, 2026

The Edo State Government’s directive ordering the arrest and prosecution of students allegedly involved in the viral bullying incident at Igbinedion Education Centre has drawn public attention and stirred understandable outrage. The State has a duty to preserve order, protect students, and respond firmly to misconduct. But where children are involved, the real question is not whether the government should act. It is whether it is acting in the right way.

That question matters because, under Nigerian law, children are not to be treated as ordinary offenders. Any state response to their conduct must be guided not by public anger or the desire to make an example of them, but by Nigeria’s specialised child justice framework, which places rehabilitation, protection, and the best interests of the child at the centre.

Is This the Right Approach to Child Justice?

The directive sends a strong message that bullying will not be tolerated. However, it must be examined within Nigeria’s broader child protection realities, where many children already face violence, neglect, and limited access to psychosocial support.

From a child development perspective, punitive responses can do more harm than good. They risk deepening trauma, reinforcing stigma, and increasing the likelihood of repeated harmful behaviour.

By contrast, restorative justice offers a more constructive path, one that promotes accountability, healing, and behavioural change. But this approach only works when the legal safeguards designed for children are properly followed.

At the heart of the issue is a crucial principle: children must not be defined by their worst actions. The focus should be on addressing the wrongdoing while safeguarding the dignity and developmental needs of every child involved.

The Applicable Legal Framework

Any state response must be grounded in established law and policy, including:

• The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), particularly Sections 34, 35, and 36, which guarantee dignity, personal liberty, and fair hearing
• The Child Rights Law of Edo State (2007), the primary legislation governing child justice in the State
• The Edo State Child Protection Policy (2015)
• The Child Rights Act (2003), which sets the national standard
• The 2025 National Policy on Anti-Bullying in Nigerian Schools
• The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

These instruments are clear and consistent: children must not be treated as adult offenders.

Key Statutory Principles

1. The Best Interest of the Child
   Section 1 of the Edo State Child Rights Law 2007 provides that in all actions concerning a child, whether by public or private institutions, courts, or authorities, the best interest of the child must be the paramount consideration.
2. Prohibition of Adult Criminal Processes
   Section 146 establishes the Family Court system specifically to handle all matters relating to children, both civil and criminal. These courts exist to ensure justice for children while promoting family stability and social reintegration.

This means that when children come into conflict with the law, they should be brought before the Family Court and not regular courts. Further reinforcing this approach, Section 210 provides that terms such as “conviction” and “sentence” are not to be used in relation to a child.

3. Mandate for Diversion and Non-Custodial Measures
   Section 218 outlines clear limits on punishment. Children must not be imprisoned, subjected to corporal punishment, or exposed to the death penalty.

Where wrongdoing is established, the law emphasises alternatives such as:

• Discharge or dismissal of the case
• Supervision, guidance, or care orders
• Counselling and group interventions
• Community service under supervision
• Compensation or restitution
• Parental responsibility measures
• Placement in institutional care is strictly a last resort and must be justified in writing by the court.

Legal Duties and Institutional Responsibilities

1. Procedural Safeguards
   Where state intervention becomes necessary, Section 211 of the Child Rights Act provides essential protections, including:

• Immediate notification of parents or guardians
• Handling by specialised Child Protection Units within the police
• Strict confidentiality

Protecting the identity of the children involved is critical. Public exposure constitutes a violation of their rights and may cause lasting harm.

2. Legal Evaluation of the Directive

Executive action must operate within the bounds of the law. A blanket directive framed in terms of “arrest and prosecution” risks bypassing the safeguards built into Edo State’s Child Rights Law (2007).

Nigeria’s child justice system is intentionally rehabilitative. Tools such as Social Inquiry Reports and Care Orders are designed to address underlying issues and support reintegration, not to impose punitive sanctions that may ultimately be counterproductive.

3. Legal Risks and Compliance Concerns

  A purely punitive approach raises several concerns:

• Potential violations of constitutional rights, exposing the State to legal challenges
• Long-term stigmatisation with harmful psychological effects
• Procedural breaches if Family Court processes are not followed

Legally Sound Alternatives

Accountability and child protection are not mutually exclusive. A more balanced approach would include:

• Immediate diversion through child protection mechanisms such as counselling and mediation
• Confidential proceedings within the Family Court where necessary, guided by restorative principles
• A comprehensive safeguarding audit of the school in line with the 2025 National Anti-Bullying Policy
• Structured psychological and emotional support for the affected child

A Child Rights Lens: Justice and Safe Development

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms every child’s right to protection, development, and rehabilitation. This calls for systems that do more than react to harm, they must also prevent it and support healthy development. Addressing bullying, therefore, must go beyond punishment. It requires strengthening school systems, equipping educators, supporting families, and helping children develop healthier ways of relating and resolving conflict.

Conclusion

Above all, it is important to keep in mind that a school owes children a duty of care. Indeed, the first responsibility of any school is to safeguard and protect the children entrusted to it. This is fundamental, because where safeguarding and protection are not guaranteed, learning cannot truly take place. In fact, the very purpose of a school is defeated when children do not feel safe.

It is therefore not enough merely to have guardrails intended to safeguard and protect children from all forms of abuse. Those guardrails must also be clearly known to the children themselves, so that they can have confidence in the safety systems around them. It falls below expectation where safeguarding structures exist only on paper or in policy, but are not known or understood by the children they are meant to protect. This is why children must also be taught their role in their own protection. Only then can they begin to feel safe, and until they feel safe, the educational environment remains compromised.

For this reason, it is important to build capacity within the system. The State Government must ask itself which line ministry or ministries are responsible for the statewide implementation of a child safeguarding and protection system within schools. Beyond this, the foundation must be the deliberate building of a culture of child safeguarding and protection. That culture must then be translated into systems; those systems must be embedded in policy; those policies must be broken down into processes; and those processes must be taught, understood, and implemented by everyone within the school community until safeguarding becomes a lived culture. Globally, that is the standard. We are in the 21st century, in a world that has become a global village, and Edo State cannot afford to be an exception.

Accordingly, we advise the Government to adopt a holistic approach to child safeguarding and protection across all schools, both public and private. That is the ultimate solution. Sporadic actions taken in the heat of the moment, or reactive measures prompted only by an incident that ought to have been prevented in the first place, do not solve the real problem.

Ideally, if this matter is properly considered, the parents of the affected children may have grounds to maintain an action against both the school and the Government. This is because the Government also bears responsibility for ensuring that proper standards exist and are effectively enforced. Section 2 of the Child Rights Law of Edo State recognizes the need for conformity with established rules, regulations, and standards. The important questions therefore are these: have those standards been created; if they have, are they being enforced; and if they are not, why not? These are fundamental issues.

For this reason, we implore the Government to embrace a holistic approach rather than a fire-brigade approach, which ultimately solves nothing. Much is often said about deterrence, but deterrence is overrated where harm is clearly preventable. One must ask: why rely on deterrence when prevention is both possible and necessary? Even the most severe punishments have not eliminated wrongdoing. Deterrence, standing alone, does not provide an adequate answer.

When it comes to children, prevention must always be preferred to deterrence. Once harm has occurred, everyone is affected: the child, the family, the school, and society at large. That is why the emphasis must be on prevention. Globally, a clear pathway has already been established for prevention through effective safeguarding systems, and that is the path that must be followed.

Source of image