Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans is to second guess the public prosecution service over the legality of controversial pyramid schemes, Opposition Legislative Affairs spokesman John Barritt has claimed.

He questioned why -- when the Director of Public Prosecutions, in charge of criminal matters, had already ruled that pyramid schemes were illegal -- the Attorney General's Chambers, in charge of civil matters and headed by a political appointee, had been asked by Cabinet for its opinion as well.

And he called on Premier Jennifer Smith to "come clean'' on why the Attorney General had become involved in the row.

Mr. Barritt said: "Public Prosecutions are responsible for the prosecution of criminal offences, which includes making a determination of whether an alleged act is an offence.

"And we in the Opposition understood that with the appointment of a political Attorney General there would be a complete and distinct separation between the two branches of what had been known as the Attorney General's Chambers.'' "That is, there would be a criminal division under a Director of Public Prosecutions and a civil division, only the latter of which would be subject to direction by the Attorney General.'' Pyramid schemes work by soliciting cash sums from people in anticipation of much larger returns depending on further recruitment to the programme.

Three of the most popular schemes in Bermuda saw people fork out $500, $2,000 or $5,000 -- said to be a gift -- with anticipated returns of $4000, $16,000 or $48,000.

Mr. Barritt asked why a second opinion was needed -- and what would happen if the AG's opinion differed from the DPP's.

And he speculated: "Is it that they do not like the opinion and is the Premier and her Cabinet looking for another?'' Mr. Barritt said Government had announced two weeks ago that the AG and her team would be consulted and that it would be made public on Tuesday of last week -- which did not happen.

He added: "I therefore call on Government through the Premier to come clean on why the opinion of the AG was sought and why the DPP should not be allowed to act on their own findings without the interference of a second opinion from a political Attorney General.'' And Mr. Barritt said: "This matter clearly illustrates the concerns we had as an Opposition when we learned of the appointment of a political AG.'' And he demanded that Government produce clear guidelines on the separation of powers between the civil and criminal law sides to prevent any suggestion of political interference.

Mr. Barritt said: "The public has a right to reassurance that there is this separation both in theory or practice.''