Soon after the Reverend Nicholas Tweed arrived in Bermuda, he made his political agenda quite clear. For example, he has been the guest speaker at Progressive Labour Party functions. He has played a significant role in maligning the airport project. And, he has played a minor role in impugning the character of the Minister of Finance.

Tweed also was a leader behind the incendiary protest at the House of Assembly in March. This was not some run-of-the-mill protest, but one that used the threat of civil unrest to shut down the Legislature. It was a protest that not only shut down Bermuda’s democracy, but also threatened to destabilise the entire island.

So, especially with America’s Cup next year and a General Election on the horizon, I expect that the One Bermuda Alliance would be more than happy to see Tweed go. I don’t think they are alone in that regard, though. There are church rumblings about Tweed’s political views dominating the pulpit, and there are questions about Bermudians being frozen out of the position.

I have reservations about Tweed’s political activism where they override the decisions of the electorate. To put it bluntly, despite his family connection, I am uncomfortable with the House of Assembly being held to ransom by someone who is not Bermudian, is not married to a Bermudian, was not born here, was not raised here, has not lived here for more than three years, has not paid significant taxes here and has not sacrificed anything significant for Bermuda.

Consider for a moment former Minister of Immigration Derrick Burgess’s remarks from 2007: “Any country you go in — you do not get involved in their politics. That is a commonsense attitude you should take. I would never do it and I have never done it. I would be afraid to.”

Burgess’s “advice” quite obviously speaks to repercussions for non-Bermudians who stick their noses into our affairs. This type of threat is precisely why it is absolutely critical for the work-permit application process to have checks and balances that prevent politicians from abusing their power.

When considering a minister’s ability to interfere with the immigration process, three Immigration checks and balances come to mind. The very first is the composition of the Immigration Board. These individuals review every single work permit and make recommendations on applications to the minister. The present board members are as follows: Glen Smith, William C. Madeiros, Michael Bradshaw, Michael Branco, Daina Casling, Antoinette Daniels, Dueane Dill, Charles Dunstan, Chris Garland, Donna E. Harvey-Maybury, Kelli-Anne Smith, Norma Trott and Nagma Walker.

I recognise half of the people on this board, and I find it next to impossible to believe that they would not resign over a corrupt minister rejecting a work-permit application for political reasons. For this reason alone, I am inclined to dismiss the allegations of political interference.

The second check and balance is the actual work-permit policy and application form. Both of these documents are very straightforward, which leads me to believe that the application process does not leave much room for political interference — as long as the form is filled out as required.

Yet, various news reports have specifically referred to the requirement to advertise the position before applying for a work permit. Interestingly, the work-permit policy and application form clearly lay out a method by which the advertising requirement may be waived should that be desired.

In summary, the Church has had three months to clear up any discrepancies and pay any fees due to waive the advertising requirement. If all of these requirements have been met, then what possible grounds could the immigration department have for rejecting the application?

This brings me to the third and final check and balance. Pati gives the public the right to access internal documents, and we have an ombudsman who is charged with reviewing government processes. If the minister has interfered in the process, then she has done it with the full knowledge that any member of the public can request internal documents, and that the Church can request that the ombudsman review the application process.

In other words, the degree of transparency we now have in government makes it extremely difficult for a minister to interfere with the process. In this particular case, it would be political suicide.

Having considered all three checks and balances, the AME Church has to make a far better case for why it feels disrespected. It is extremely easy to explain why the OBA would be happy to see Tweed go, but based upon the facts before us, it is hard to believe that they would attempt to push him out.

•To reach out to Bryant Trew, e-mail bryanttrew@mac.com