By Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka in Abuja
Titles carry weight in law. They signal training, rank, and tradition. So when the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, issued a memorandum on July 13, 2026 directing lawyers to drop “Barrister” from all official Supreme Court engagements, she did more than edit letterheads. She triggered a debate about statutory identity, professional decorum, and how the Nigerian Bar presents itself to the world. The directive is brief, but its implications cut to the core of legal practice in Nigeria.
What the directive actually says
The memo, signed by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Kabir Akanbi, was addressed to litigation staff, legal practitioners, court registrars and lawyers. It declares the use of “Barrister” as a prefix “inappropriate and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected within the Supreme Court.” Compliance is to be immediate and covers correspondence, records, documents, ID materials, and all official engagements. Heads of departments are to enforce it.
The legal foundation: what Nigerian law recognizes
Under the Legal Practitioners Act, persons called to the Nigerian Bar are enrolled as “Legal Practitioners.” The Act does not create a separate class of “Barristers” and “Solicitors” as in England. SANs are designated “Senior Advocate of Nigeria.” Everyone else is simply a legal practitioner, and “Esq.” is the conventional suffix. The CJN’s directive therefore aligns practice with statute, not with inherited colonial nomenclature.
Why “Barrister” became entrenched
Despite the law, “Barrister” became a cultural prefix in Nigeria. It is on law firm signboards, email signatures, and court filings. For many lawyers, it is a mark of pride and differentiation from non lawyers. It also fills a vacuum: the public understands “Barrister” more readily than “Legal Practitioner.” The CJN is now asking the profession to trade familiarity for precision.
Professionalism vs. identity
The CJN frames the issue as one of professionalism and uniformity. From an institutional perspective, she is right. Courts function better with standardized naminppppg. Records are cleaner. There is less ambiguity in cause lists and judgments. But for individual practitioners, the title is part of professional identity. Removing it feels like erasure, especially for young lawyers building a brand.
A signal about conduct, not just grammar
This is unlikely to be only about words. The Supreme Court, under Justice Kekere-Ekun, appears to be signaling a broader push for decorum. If the court is policing prefixes, it is also likely to police delays, frivolous applications, and poor citation. The ban on “Barrister” can be read as a proxy: focus less on titles, more on the quality of advocacy and ethics.
Administrative logic and global practice
Administratively, the directive makes sense. Most common-law jurisdictions do not use “Barrister” as a prefix in filings. Judges and registrars deal with thousands of documents. Uniformity reduces errors. It also prevents the subtle stratification that can emerge when some lawyers use the prefix and others don’t, creating an unofficial hierarchy within the Bar.
Likely resistance and implementation challenges
Expect pushback. Law firms will have to reprint stationery, update websites, and retrain staff. More importantly, there is a perception problem. Many lawyers and clients will ask: does dropping “Barrister” diminish the status of the profession? The NBA and the Body of Benchers will need to provide guidance so that compliance is not limited to the Supreme Court but harmonized across courts.
The risk of selective enforcement
The directive is clear, but enforcement will determine its credibility. If only junior lawyers are called out while senior, influential practitioners ignore it, the policy will breed resentment. Heads of departments have been tasked with supervision. The test will be whether the Supreme Court applies the rule evenly, including in documents filed by SANs and government counsel.
Opportunity for public legal education
There is an upside. The CJN can use this moment to educate the public on what Nigerian lawyers are actually called under law. “Legal Practitioner” is accurate, but unknown. A short campaign explaining the designation could help the public understand court processes better and reduce confusion about roles in the justice system.
Conclusion: Substance over semantics
In the end, no title will win a case or deliver justice. The CJN’s memo is a reminder that the law values substance over ornament. By removing “Barrister” from official use, the Supreme Court is asking lawyers to let their work speak. Whether the Bar embraces it or resists it, the directive sets a tone: at the apex court, professionalism will be measured by conduct, competence, and compliance with the law, not by the prefix before a name.
