Much has already been written and said about my former colleague and good friend Mrs. Louise Jackson, all of it complimentary, all of it deserved, and today, on the eve of her funeral, I want to begin the column with my own special tribute.

Louise was a regular reader too, who, and this won’t surprise any of you, always told me what she thought in clear and forthright fashion. Sound familiar? It should. You always knew where you stood with Louise, and where she stood on an issue.

Louise was neither bashful nor backward about going forward. That is what all of us who knew her liked the most about her even if, or perhaps especially when we found ourselves in disagreement.

It should not surprise you that our disagreements were few and far between. After all we did serve on the same side, politically. In fact, I like to think that we got along famously when we sat together on the Hill on the Opposition backbench, enduring long days and nights and sometimes excruciating debate, but always with a keen good sense of humour. Louise enjoyed a good laugh and we always found there was plenty to laugh about. Quietly, of course.

Louise had to also endure some fierce debates, and it was on her feet that she was at her best. Louise used to complain to me from time to time that she wished she was better versed in parliamentary procedure so that she could better fend off the barrage of hectoring she would invariably evoke from the PLP benches when she spoke.

But she didn’t need to be well versed — and I told her that. Louise was more effective, most effective in fact, when she pressed on and ignored the carping and spoke directly to her audience, the people of Bermuda.

While Louise may have spoken from notes (she believed in doing her homework and being prepared: that was the teacher in her) she also spoke from the heart. Her concern for seniors, for the elderly and the infirm, and for healthcare generally in Bermuda, was not something that she conjured up or manufactured just for political purposes. It was genuine and it was real. People understood that and knew that about Louise instantly, including those whom she criticised, fearlessly and relentlessly if need be.

Frankly, I marvelled at her stamina, her ability to stick to it, to make her point and to be heard. I have said it before and I will state it again, Louise Jackson not only preached that age should not be a barrier to participation in life in Bermuda, she was living proof.

I am absolutely certain that Louise will be missed, and by many, myself included, dearly, but she will not be forgotten. Respect, affection and admiration. Louise Jackson earned all three, the old fashioned way, by hard work and service to others. Rest in peace, Louise, rest in peace.

We fight on in her absence.

Constitutionally speaking

The Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 is pretty clear on the point. There is meant to be a clear separation of responsibilities between the office of the Attorney General and that of the Director of Public Prosecutions whenever the AG is a political appointee. There are entire sections devoted to ensuring that this should be so. The reasons are obvious and the chief one is to avoid any possibility of political influence in criminal prosecutions, even the appearance of any such interference.

Does that mean that the AG cannot ever comment on criminal prosecutions? No, I don’t think so.

Does this mean that the AG should comment on criminal prosecutions? No, I don’t think so.

It is a slippery slope on which to embark and any comment, no matter how well intended, can easily be construed, or honestly misconstrued, to give credence to the notion that there is opportunity for collaboration between the AG and DPP — or worse still interference. There is also the challenge too, of where to draw the line as to which cases deserve comment: only high profile cases which have political overtones or connections and not all?

It always seemed to me that there ought to be a clearly defined code of practice as to what a politically-appointed AG should or should not do with respect to the DPP and his prosecution staff. The point was also made when the PLP made the first political appointment back in 1998. The guidelines should also be available for the information and review of the general public at any time. So too, should the guidelines that are employed to decide who does and does not qualify for a caution instead of prosecution.

That to me is evidence of transparency and transparency goes a long way to countering claims of favouritism and alleviating suspicions of political influence. Transparency is also the means by which the people hold power accountable.

A Masters victory

Stop the presses! We have a winner to the Match Game quiz. Reader Harry Masters was the first to e-mail me with all the rights answers. Congratulations Harry. You are $100 richer for the effort. Thank you too, for all those who competed. Glad you enjoyed it.

The correct answers: 1.i 2.r 3.n 4.b 5.c 6.h 7.f 8.s 9.t 10.l 11.o 12.m 13.d 14.k 15 j. 16.a 17.p 18.e 19.q 20.g.

Harry’s secret? “I first went through the quotes and identified those I could easily ascertain. Then by process of elimination I matched up the quotes with authors I was unsure of. Then to verify my answers, I used a combination of searches on The Royal gazette website as well as Google to locate the answers.”

Simple huh?