A sharp political debate has broken out in Antigua and Barbuda over a controversial plan to temporarily host law classes for the University of the West Indies (UWI) Five Islands Campus at People’s Place, the official headquarters of the governing Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP). The conflict emerged after opposition Senator Malaka Parker published a scathing commentary attacking the proposal, prompting a forceful rebuttal from government Senator Phillip Shoul.
Parker, a member of the opposition United Progressive Party (UPP), laid out a series of principled objections to the venue selection. While she openly acknowledged that expanding local legal education would cut study costs for domestic students from Antigua and Barbuda, she argued that these practical benefits do not outweigh the institutional risks of hosting a university programme in a major political party’s headquarters. Parker emphasized that her concerns are not related to the size, amenities, location, or free availability of the space – the core issue, she insisted, is the venue’s inherent partisan identity that makes it fundamentally unsuitable for an independent academic institution.
“A political party headquarters does not become an appropriate university campus simply because space is available,” Parker stated in her commentary. She warned that holding law classes at the site would surround students with partisan symbols, political events, and party figures, opening the door to risks of political recruitment, ideological indoctrination, and unfair treatment of students who affiliate with other parties or hold no political alignment. Parker stressed that no student should ever be forced to enter the governing party’s headquarters to access a public education, and questioned whether UWI would ever consider holding classes at the opposition UPP’s headquarters to test the fairness of the arrangement.
Parker underscored that the stakes are particularly high for this cohort of law students, who will go on to work as attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and legislators – roles that require unwavering commitment to judicial independence, ethical decision-making, and the rule of law. She called on UWI leadership to immediately and clearly reject the proposed venue, publicly disclose how the plan was developed, and select a politically neutral alternative, ranging from public government buildings and existing educational institutions to commercial conference centres or temporary modular classroom facilities.
In a detailed, point-by-point response, Shoul dismissed all of Parker’s claims as baseless speculation rooted in partisan political opposition, and accused the UPP of launching a coordinated attack to undermine the reputation of UWI itself. Shoul drew a clear line between temporary use of vacant space for academic instruction and ceding institutional control of the university to a political party, arguing that the two scenarios are entirely distinct.
He challenged Parker repeatedly to produce concrete evidence that the ABLP has any involvement in student admissions, or plans to interfere with the curriculum, teaching, or student experience at the programme. “Holding classes in a particular building does not mean students are being recruited, indoctrinated, politically screened or required to support the organization associated with that building,” Shoul explained. He noted that Parker has failed to prove any claim that the party would control UWI operations, pressure lecturers, influence student political beliefs, display partisan materials in classroom spaces, discriminate against non-ABLP supporters, or tie access to education to political affiliation.
Shoul pushed back particularly hard against an inflammatory comparison Parker made between the ABLP headquarters and venues tied to illegal activities like prostitution, gambling, and gang activity. He called that comparison a deliberate attempt to smear both UWI and the ABLP’s headquarters by falsely linking the facility to criminal and disreputable activity, labeling the rhetoric damaging and intentionally provocative.
According to Shoul, the only relevant questions about the proposal focus on four core criteria: whether UWI will retain full, unfettered control over its academic programme, whether all students will receive equal, unrestricted access to classes, whether teaching spaces will be kept free of partisan political material, and whether both lecturers and students will be protected from unwanted political interference. “If the answers are yes, then the argument should be based on facts rather than fear and political rhetoric,” he said.
Shoul acknowledged that it is reasonable to debate whether People’s Place is the ideal long-term venue for the programme, but stressed that disagreement over the location does not equal proof of corruption or improper political influence. He rejected the claim that law students will automatically develop compromised political values simply by attending classes in the building, and challenged Parker to show that any enrolled student has actually raised concerns about the arrangement. “Disagree with the location if you wish, but disagreement should not be dressed up as proof of corruption,” Shoul concluded.