Lawyers Divided Over CJN’s Directive on ‘Barrister’
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
The Nigerian legal community has taken differing stances on a directive issued by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), which calls for the cessation of the prefix "Barrister" when referring to lawyers in official matters with the Supreme Court. This directive was detailed in a memorandum from July 13, 2026, and signed by Kabir Akanbi, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court. Its purpose is to maintain professional standards within the legal system.
The Nigerian Law Society (NLS), however, opposes the directive on the grounds that it lacks a clear legal basis. Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, the Executive Director of the NLS, pointed out that the Legal Practitioners Act does not explicitly delegate the authority to prohibit the use of the term "Barrister" to either the CJN, the Legal Practitioners' Privileges Committee, or the Nigerian Bar Association.
Furthermore, the NLS has also questioned the suggested alternative title "Esquire," arguing that the term is not explicitly mentioned in the Act.
Despite the NLS's challenges, some legal professionals endorse the CJN's directive. They contend that the use of "Barrister" as a title for lawyers in official court settings is unprofessional and contradicts established professional practices and judicial authority. They reference a previous Supreme Court decision in NBA v Ofomata, where it was stated that using "Barrister" as a title prefix for lawyers is improper.
Consequently, the debate has shifted from the meaning of the term "Barrister" to a broader inquiry about the extent of the CJN's administrative power and the difference between professional titles and statutory designations. The ongoing discussion also involves the influence of existing judicial rulings on legal practices. While the NLS maintains that the directive lacks a solid legal foundation, those who support the CJN's stance rely on established professional rules and judicial precedents.
The controversy remains unresolved, with the possibility of further judicial clarification being open for consideration.
Written by urgent.news from This Day's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
