According to the judge, lawyers appearing before the court must strictly follow the established rules on professional dressing.
These rules require advocates to wear suits that are either grey or dark in colour when appearing before the bench. Justice Ngaah observed that Havi’s attire did not meet these requirements.
The judge therefore directed the senior counsel to leave the courtroom until he complied with the appropriate dress code.
The ruling immediately disrupted the proceedings as Havi had been expected to participate in the hearing.
Justice Ngaah emphasized that court rules are not optional and must be followed by all lawyers, regardless of their seniority or reputation.
He noted that the dress code is meant to maintain the dignity and order of court proceedings.
According to him, professional standards must be upheld at all times in the courtroom.
Havi reportedly requested the court to adjourn the matter so that he could address the issue. However, the judge declined the request, insisting that the cases would continue as scheduled.
Justice Ngaah said the court could not delay proceedings simply because one lawyer had not complied with the dress code requirements.
The judge explained that the petitions before the court involve weighty constitutional questions and therefore needed to proceed without unnecessary delays.
As a result, the hearing continued even after the senior counsel was asked to step out.
The matter concerning the possible dissolution of Parliament has attracted attention from legal experts and members of the public.
The petitions argue that certain constitutional requirements relating to representation and governance may not have been fully met, prompting calls for judicial intervention.
While the legal issues remain complex, the courtroom incident involving Havi quickly became a talking point among observers.
Some legal practitioners noted that dress codes are a long-standing tradition in the legal profession and are considered an important part of courtroom decorum.
Others argued that while the rules must be respected, such situations can easily become distractions from the substantive legal questions before the court.