A legal battle over control of the historic Critchlow Labour College (CLC) compound intensified on Monday when the matter came up before Justice Fidela Corbin Lincoln at the High Court, with attorneys clashing over the legitimacy of a controversial lease agreement involving University of Excellence, Management and Business (UEMB) Principal Dr. Stanley Paul.
Paul, who has retained Senior Counsel Timothy Jonas, is seeking to defend the validity of the lease agreement that allegedly granted UEMB extensive control over sections of the Woolford Avenue property.
During the hearing, Jonas argued that the lease agreement was legitimate because it bore the signature of Critchlow Labour College Principal Dr. Ivor English, whom he said possessed ostensible authority to execute the agreement on behalf of the institution. According to Jonas, Dr. English’s execution of the document was sufficient to bind the institution and validate the arrangement between the parties.
However, that position was strongly challenged by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who is representing Critchlow Labour College, of which Lincoln Lewis is Secretary and Director. Forde argued that under the rules and governance structure of the Critchlow Labour College, the authorised signing officer for such agreements is the Board Secretary and not the Principal. He further contended that Dr. English did not possess ostensible authority and that his actions were not authorised by the principals of the Critchlow Labour College.
The dispute over the authority to execute the lease has become a central issue in the wider controversy surrounding control of the property. Justice Corbin Lincoln subsequently requested both parties to submit written legal arguments by June 8. The matter was adjourned to June 18 for further hearing.
The controversy stems from a lease agreement allegedly signed in June 2025 between Dr. Paul and Dr. English, granting UEMB long-term control over sections of the Critchlow Labour College compound. The arrangement has since triggered outrage within sections of the labour movement and raised questions about governance, authority, and ownership of one of Guyana’s most historic labour institutions.
Lewis has maintained that the agreement was improperly executed and could not be legally binding without authorisation from the College Board and the Georgetown Mayor and City Council, which leased the land to the institution.
Lewis has also argued that the College never surrendered ownership or control of the property and accused Paul of attempting to take control of the compound during a period of instability following devastating fires at the institution in March 22, 2025 and July 31, 2025, which authorities ruled were acts of arson.
The dispute escalated earlier this year when Lewis, accompanied by staff and an excavator, attempted to remove gates and barriers erected around the compound. The operation was halted after Paul appeared at the scene and objected, insisting that UEMB had lawful control of the premises under the lease agreement.
The matter has attracted widespread attention within labour circles because of the symbolic importance of Critchlow Labour College, which was founded in honour of trade union pioneer Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow and has historically served as a centre for labour education and trade union training in Guyana.
The Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) and the leadership of Critchlow Labour College have maintained that the institution remains under the lawful control of its Board and stakeholders, insisting that no individual or outside entity can assume authority over the historic labour institution without proper approval and adherence to its governance structure. The case has become a defining battle over the protection of one of Guyana’s most important labour landmarks and the preservation of the legacy of trade union pioneer Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow.
Labour representatives have also pointed to troubling actions surrounding the dispute, including reports that Dr. Stanley Paul previously handed over keys to sections of the compound and was involved in burning documents from his university in a wheelbarrow within the Critchlow Labour College premises during the height of the controversy.
Observers within the labour movement have condemned the acts as reckless, disrespectful, and deeply damaging to the dignity and reputation of an institution established to advance workers’ education and empowerment.
