In a democracy, it is the law that should reign supreme.

Many will suffer when that fails and the consequences can be many, as a former chief justice had noted almost six years ago, warning to beware the rule of delinquency.

But the omnipotent can have a field day too. The proud owner of a car she has been unable to take out of the rented garage for a good six months because of a concrete block at the entrance will certainly agree.

She is the innocent victim of a financial dispute between the person who owns the garage and the Polidano Group.

The matter is before the court but the Polidano Group opted to take the law into its own hands.

Incidentally, after the matter was raised by Times of Malta, the company, in a public demonstration of its ‘benevolence’, offered the car owner use of a rent-free garage as a “gesture of goodwill”.

The police did not raise a finger, however, telling the motorists that, once the concrete block is not obstructing public access on the pavement, they have nothing to do with it.

They must have their own reasons for their stand.

However, Polidano Group’s action seems to be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Regulations.

The subsidiary legislation lays down that nobody can park or leave unattended any motor vehicle that impedes any motor vehicle of another person from having free entrance to or exit from any premises used and clearly marked as a garage by the words “Garage in use”.

The video accompanying the news item carried by Times of Malta clearly shows a small red notice stuck to the gate with white letters saying “Garage in use day and night. Strictly no parking”.

True, it is not a motor vehicle that is obstructing the entrance but a large concrete block. But, surely, the spirit of the regulations is free access to a garage, irrespective of what impedes the entrance or exit.

This would not be the only episode in which the police preferred to make selective interpretation of the law when dealing with Polidano.

Five years ago, to mention another instance, Polidano was cleared of all criminal charges brought against him after a tiger, out on a leash with handlers at his Montekristo Animal Park, had severely mauled a five-year old boy.

He had been accused of running an unlicensed animal park, keeping wild animals that were not allowed in Malta.

The police had justified their two-year delay in pressing charges by saying they wanted the magisterial inquiry to be concluded first. Passing judgment, the presiding magistrate commented that the police only had to ask for the inquiry to be closed if they felt they had sufficient evidence to press charges.

The police had failed to exhibit a list of the animals inside the zoo and to prove that an unlicensed zoo had been kept in operation for more than seven days, in terms of law.

If the police are duty bound to ensure the law prevails and offenders are brought to book, the state has an obligation to ensure a person has the means at law to protect any possession.

A lease of property, as in this case, also qualifies to protection under the first protocol of the European Human Rights Convention.

It seems, however, that the bold and mighty continue to enjoy impunity.