Lawyers have expressed divergent views over a directive by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, GCON, directing legal practitioners and court officials to stop using “Barrister” as a prefix to their names in official engagements with the Supreme Court.
The directive was contained in a memorandum dated July 13, 2026, and signed by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Kabir Akanbi. The memorandum directed legal practitioners, court registrars and other relevant officials to discontinue the use of “Barrister” as a prefix in official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials and other engagements with the Apex Court, as part of efforts to uphold professional standards.
The Nigerian Law Society (NLS), however, has challenged the legal basis of the directive. Its Executive Director, Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, argued that the Legal Practitioners Act recognises Nigerian Lawyers as “Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court”, and does not expressly empower the CJN, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee or the Nigerian Bar Association, to prohibit the use of the designation. The Society also questioned the recommendation of “Esquire” as an alternative, arguing that the term is not expressly contained in the Act either.
Other Lawyers, however, have supported the CJN’s position, arguing that the directive is consistent with established professional practice and judicial authority on the proper use of “Barrister” as a title. They point to the Supreme Court’s decision in NBA v Ofomata, in which the Court described the use of “Barrister” as a prefix to a Lawyer’s name as unprofessional and improper.
upporters of the directive therefore, contend that it does not amount to a declaration that Nigerian Lawyers are not Barristers, but concerns the manner in which the designation is used as a title or prefix in official court engagements. They argue that the Apex Court is entitled to enforce professional standards, and regulate the form in which legal practitioners present themselves in proceedings and official dealings with the court.
The controversy has consequently shifted from the meaning of the word “Barrister” to a wider legal question over the scope of the CJN’s administrative authority, the distinction between professional titles and statutory designations, and the extent to which existing judicial decisions regulate the practice. While the NLS maintains that the directive lacks a clear statutory foundation, Lawyers supporting the CJN’s position rely on professional rules and judicial precedent, leaving the debate open as to whether the matter will ultimately require further judicial clarification.