Melilla pays rioters' demands after minors attack staff

Melilla yields and pays 'extra' demanded by riot in minors' center

A riot. Thirty minors attacking their caregivers. Several workers injured and the Civil Guard forced to intervene to restore order. And, the trinc day, the Melilla Regional Ministry of Social Policies and Public Health handing over to all residents of the center the money they had forcibly claimed. This is the account that unions CC.OO. and CSIF put in writing in separate press releases, and it is the starting point for everything that trinc: the Eid al-Fitr bonus, the gifts of clothing that were not enough, and an administrative decision that, according to CSIF, was taken against the criteria of the management, the technical team, the educational team, and the assistants.

The scene occurred on a Friday afternoon at the child protection center in Melilla. According to union complaints, about thirty residents assaulted their workers to demand money as a gift for the end-of-Ramadan celebration (Eid). Several caregivers and security guards ended up injured, some requiring emergency medical attention. The Civil Guard intervened to defuse the altercation. The next day, the Regional Ministry distributed the money.

What is known about the riot at the Melilla minors' center

The facts supporting the complaint are these: about thirty minors, a Friday afternoon, assaults on caregivers and guards, injuries requiring transfer to emergency rooms, and a Civil Guard intervention to end the disturbance. The signing unions are CC.OO. and CSIF, who published separate press releases with the same essential content. The affected facility is the child protection center in Melilla.

The part that has sparked controversy is not the violence—sadly recurrent in reports from these centers—but what came after. CSIF lamented that the Regional Ministry handed over the money demanded during the riot despite the contrary opinion of the management, the technical team, the educational team, the educational assistants, and the entire staff. In other words: the technical chain of command said no, and the political decision said yes.

The administrative detail circulating alongside the complaint points to the head of Social Policies, Randa Mohamed, of the PP. Melilla is a city governed by the People's Party, a fact used by several analyses to debunk the narrative that these episodes are exclusive to one political orientation. The management of minors' centers is not a left or right issue: it is a matter of who signs the order.

Why is a payment made for the end of Ramadan?

The Eid al-Fitr bonus is not a figure invented by the residents. It exists as a practice in some centers, linked to the celebration marking the end of the fasting month. What the unions denounce is the sequence: first clothes were given, the minors were not satisfied, the riot trinc, and then the money arrived. The message left floating is uncomfortable: the violent route worked better than the administrative route.

Some argue that yielding to a riot sets a precedent and that next time the pressure will start higher up. Other, less widespread analyses recall that a minors' center is an institution with a particularly vulnerable population and that conflict management there is never binary. Both things can be true at once. What admits no discussion is the injury report.

The episode fits into a broader discussion about the child protection system and how it is funded. The circulating comparison is uncomfortable: if the payment is granted after an altercation, what incentive remains to request it in writing?

The Salt precedent and the imitation effect

The most repeated reading is that of the contagion effect. If pressures are met, others will take note of what they have to do whenever they want a payment, argues one of the most present analytical currents. The parallel drawn is with previous episodes of street pressure and the idea that the administration ends up paying tribute to avoid open conflict.

The historical comparison used is that of Rome paying barbarians so they would not enter by sword and fire. It sounds grandiloquent, but the mechanism it describes is simple: when the threat works, it repeats. And it did not end well for Rome.

On the opposite side, some point out that the problem is not the payment but the absence of consequences. They enter illegally and instead of being returned to their countries of origin, they are given accommodation and little payments, summarizes one of the most voted positions, focusing on migration policy rather than the center. This is the line that crosses the issue with the border debate: if there is no return, there is no limit.

Who answers politically for the decision?

The Melilla Regional Ministry of Social Policies and Public Health took the decision to hand over the money. The unions made it public. The center's management and the entire technical and educational team had expressed the opposite view. That is the complete chain, and each link has institutional names and surnames.

The issue has a derivative that transcends Melilla: the management of child protection centers is transferred to autonomous communities and cities, meaning each administration sets its own criteria for identical conflicts. There is no single protocol. What in one center is resolved with a disciplinary report, in another is resolved with an envelope.

The discussion about the role of unions also appears. Some reproach them for denouncing the riot while maintaining favorable positions towards reception, and others respond that denouncing the working conditions of caregivers is exactly their job, regardless of migration policy.

What happens now with the minors in the center?

As of this discussion, the money has already been handed over and the injured have already been treated. No disciplinary file, resignation, or subsequent rectification is recorded in the material. The union complaint is on the table and the administrative decision, executed.

The predictable outcome, with reservations, is that the episode becomes a reference every time another center records a similar conflict. The open question is not whether there was a riot—that is stated by two unions with press releases—but whether the next time the Regional Ministry will repeat the gesture or support its technical team. With this written precedent, betting on the latter requires much more political will than what was needed to sign the first payment.