A convention is an informal and uncodified procedural agreement that is

followed by the institutions of a state.

Countries following the Westminster system have most of the functions of

government guided by constitutional convention rather than by a formal written constitution.

Some constitutional conventions operate separate from or alongside written constitutions. Others, notably in Britain, which has much of its constitution

unwritten, have a form of constitutional status.

For the creation of conventions there are two main requirements:

a general acceptance that such conduct is mandatory and

its purpose is preferable to the existing requirements of constitutional governments.

Therefore conventions are an important component of constitutional law.

 Conventions are the same as formal constitutional amendments. Conventions basically help to regulate the exercise of discretionary powers that are conferred by the constitution. Constitutional conventions arise when the exercise of a certain type of power, which is not prohibited by law, arouses such opposition that it becomes impossible, on future occasions, to engage in further exercises of this power.

 This can be defined as a legal concept encompassing legal principles that might be considered the "foundation of a civilized society". From Diceys definition of rule of law, it is stated to be of absolute supremacy to regular law in comparison to the opposition of regular law and the wide discretionary authority of the government. Through the rule of law principles of fundamental importance maintains that governments conduct must be that in accordance to the law and disputed

cases.

 Discretionary powers are powers granted either under statute delegation which

does not impose a duty on the decision maker to exercise them or to exercise them in a particular way.
They are permissive, and not mandatory. Public officials must exercise discretionary powers in accordance with any

applicable legal requirements, reasonably, impartially and avoiding oppression or unnecessary injury. No public official has an unfettered discretionary power.
Agencies should adopt policies and procedures which set out the general

approach to be followed in at least each major area of activity for which they are responsible. This should ensure that the agencys powers are exercised consistently from case to case, unless the merits of any particular case justify a different approach.

Through possession of discretionary power, cabinet ministers may have the ability to side step court rulings. From the principle established from the rule of law, this is in direct violation of the principle. The rule of law has implemented provisions in which governmental authorities and officials are to be restricted or under jurisdiction as to the extent at which their power can be exercised. It is not within their benefit to be immune to the laws which govern and maintain society and be able to use

this for their advantage.

From Diceys definition of the rule of law, it was meant that there should be equality before the law or equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts.

In exercising discretionary powers, various principles of administrative law require Cabinet Ministers and officials to:
Use discretionary powers in good faith and for a proper purpose (ie, honestly and only within the

scope of and for the purpose for which the power was given) base their decision on logically probative material (ie, logical reasons, information that proves the issues in question, relevant and reliable evidence) consider only relevant considerations and not consider irrelevant considerations give adequate weight to a matter of great importance but not give excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance exercise their discretion independently and not act under the dictation or at the behest of any third person or body give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the particular case, and not apply policy inflexibly, and observe the basic rules of procedural fairness (ie, natural justice).

 Legislation sometimes vest public authorities with powers based in broad

language such as if it appears to the Minister that so & so, or if the Minister is satisfied that.
If interpreted literally, expressions such as these could be said to give public

authorities to act on a whim or to give vent to personal preferences or prejudices.

If this were so, then the law would be administered in an arbitrary fashion and

would depend upon the predilections of the particular public officer who happens to be the repository of the power at the time. People would never be certain as to exactly what are required of them as to what there entitlements might be.
Because of this, wide discretionary powers have been held to be reviewable by

the courts which require that such powers be exercised in accordance with the intent and for the purpose of the law which vests the power in the public official.

 Re Manpower Citizens Association per Crane J

Argued that the courts could not interfere with the exercise of this discretion. However the court stated that to accept such proposition would lead to serious inroad on the rule of law in a democratic society. The rule of law in a democratic society provides that discretion is not to be exercised in a capricious and arbitrary manner, but in a disciplined and responsible way.

C O Williams v Blackman
The courts reviewed a decision of cabinet. The cabinet was acting under a specific statutory; provision thus they could review their actions under that provision. The executive is not immune from review. The applicant submitted tender which was lower than that of the only other tenderer. The special tenders committee recommended acceptance of the applicants tender. The matter was considered by cabinet and it decided under rule 148 of the Rules of 1971 to award the contract to the other tenderer, recommended by the Minister of Transport and Works, who was a member of the cabinet. The applicant applied for judicial review.

 Policies are an important means of Cabinet Ministers in exercising discretionary powers

appropriately, consistently and fairly.

The rule of law-in its many guises-represents a challenge to state authority and power,

demanding both that powers granted legitimately and that their exercise is according to law.
Policies should not be applied rigidly without proper consideration of the particular

circumstances and merits of each individual case.

There will be occasions where there are justifiable-discretionary- grounds for not following

policies, practices, codes or guidelines.

Where a minister, with good and preferably documented reason, departs from a consistent

application of a policy, this does not create a precedent which binds such activity, but, such decisions are relevant and important considerations, but are not binding.
Conversely, where a minister frequently departs from or ignores a policy, the policy would

seem to have little weight or relevance and would need review.