Online Reporter
ALTHOUGH school children are officially on holidays after the conclusion of the first term, a number of private schools in Harare are holding lessons this month disguised as remedial classes.
Some of the school children are using hired transport to attend the lessons.
The daily sight of children crammed into hired commuter omnibuses and small vans on Harare’s roads should trouble every responsible citizen. What is even more disturbing is that many of these vehicles are contracted by private schools—institutions that pride themselves on excellence, safety, and premium service.
For parents who pay substantial fees, the expectation is simple—every aspect of their child’s welfare should be safeguarded. Transport is not a peripheral service; it is an extension of the school’s duty of care.
Yet, across suburbs, one can observe vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers squeezing in 25 or more children, with some standing, others perched precariously, and seatbelts largely ignored. This is not just negligence—it is a disaster waiting to happen.
The dangers posed by overcrowded transport are neither hypothetical nor exaggerated. Zimbabwe has witnessed too many road traffic accidents involving public transport vehicles, often with devastating consequences.
Overloading reduces vehicle stability, increases stopping distances, and heightens the risk of tyre bursts. In an emergency, evacuation becomes chaotic, especially when children are packed tightly with little room to move. The very design limits of these vehicles are routinely violated, turning what should be a safe commute into a daily gamble with young lives.
What makes this situation particularly unacceptable is that private schools have both the financial capacity and the moral obligation to do better.
The continued reliance on cheap, hired vehicles suggests a troubling prioritisation of cost-saving over child safety. It raises the question: are some schools cutting corners at the expense of the very learners they are entrusted to protect?
Equally concerning is the regulatory gap that allows this practice to persist.
While traffic laws clearly prohibit overloading, enforcement appears inconsistent.
Vehicles transporting schoolchildren should be subject to stricter scrutiny, including routine inspections, licensing requirements, and penalties for non-compliance. Law enforcement agencies cannot afford to treat these cases as ordinary traffic violations; they involve minors whose safety should be paramount.
Parents, too, must reflect on their role. While schools bear primary responsibility, parental silence often enables these practices. There is a tendency to assume that because a school is reputable, all its systems are sound. However, vigilance is necessary. Parents should demand transparency about transport arrangements, inspect the vehicles used, and refuse to accept unsafe conditions. A collective voice from fee-paying parents would exert significant pressure on schools to uphold higher standards.
There is also a broader societal dimension to consider. When institutions entrusted with shaping the future of young people demonstrate disregard for basic safety protocols, it sends the wrong message. It normalises risk-taking and undermines the culture of accountability that society needs. Schools should be exemplars of discipline and responsibility, not participants in dangerous shortcuts.
Mathew Masinge