The Nigerian Law Society, NLS, has rejected the directive by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, directing lawyers and court officials to stop using the title “Barrister” as a prefix to their names in official engagements at the Supreme Court.
The society argued that the directive, which recommends the use of “Esquire” or “Esq.” as an alternative, is not backed by the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962.
The NLS made its position known through its Executive Director, Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, who said the law recognises the titles of Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria for lawyers who have been called to the Nigerian Bar.
The controversy followed a memo dated July 13, 2026, and signed by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Kabir Akanbi.
The memo, addressed to legal practitioners, court registrars and other lawyers, directed them to stop using “Barrister” before their names in official engagements at the apex court.
According to the memo, the directive was part of efforts to maintain professional standards within the Supreme Court.
However, the NLS said the decision raised important legal questions about the authority to regulate titles used by Nigerian lawyers.
Jaja said the Legal Practitioners Act recognised both “Barrister” and “Solicitor” as professional descriptions for lawyers admitted to practise in Nigeria.
He noted that using only “Barrister” could be viewed as incomplete because the law also recognises the title “Solicitor”.
“Using ‘Barrister’ as a title is a half-truth that leaves out the title of ‘Solicitor’. As an alternative title, the title of ‘Esquire’ or its abbreviated version ‘Esq.’ was to be used as the appropriate suffix by Nigerian lawyers in their official correspondences to the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” he said.
The NLS, however, maintained that while “Esquire” might be accepted as a traditional title or style, it is not expressly contained in the Legal Practitioners Act.
Jaja said this raised a contradiction because the directive sought to replace a title that he said was recognised by law with another title that was not specifically mentioned in the same legislation.
“The problem with this recommended title of ‘Esquire’, or even other alternatives ‘Barrister-At-Law’ or ‘Attorney-At-Law’ is that they do not appear inside the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962,” he said.
He argued that under the rule of law, neither the CJN, the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee, LPPC, nor the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, could impose regulations on lawyers in areas not expressly covered by the Legal Practitioners Act.
The dispute over the use of professional titles has also opened a wider debate within the legal profession about the source of authority for different titles and ranks used by lawyers.
The NLS particularly criticised what it described as an inconsistent approach to titles by the CJN and the LPPC.
Jaja referred to the controversy surrounding the rank of Senior Counsel of Nigeria, SCN, also known as the Blue Silks, which has been introduced by the NLS and the Body of Senior Counsel of Nigeria, BOSCON.
He said it was wrong for the LPPC and Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja to suggest that the SCN rank should be disregarded because it is not expressly established in the Legal Practitioners Act.
The NLS argued that the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, which is recognised in the Legal Practitioners Act, is not the only professional title or rank that can be used by lawyers.
Jaja said the historical origin of the SAN rank itself showed that professional titles did not necessarily have to originate directly from legislation.
According to him, the SAN rank was inherited from the British system of King’s Counsel, KC, which was later adopted in Nigeria in 1975 as Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
He said the King’s Counsel tradition dates back to the 16th century in the United Kingdom and was based on the granting of a special rank to outstanding lawyers by the Crown.
Jaja argued that if the historical origin of SAN is considered, the argument that every title used by lawyers must be expressly established in the Legal Practitioners Act would be difficult to sustain.
He also challenged the claim that the SCN rank was illegal simply because it was not specifically mentioned in the Legal Practitioners Act.
“The Blue Silks rank of Senior Counsel of Nigeria, SCN, is not stated inside the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962. This is the more reason why neither the NBA nor the LPPC has any powers of regulation over the Blue Silks rank,” he said.
Jaja cited a judgment of Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja as part of the legal basis for the NLS position.
He described the opposition to the SCN rank, while allowing the use of titles such as “Esquire”, as contradictory.
“It is an act of contradiction and hypocrisy for both the CJN and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to impose a ban upon a title ‘Barrister’ that is explicitly listed inside the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962 and replace it with alternatives that are not explicitly stated inside any statutes,” he said.
The NLS also alleged that the different treatment of titles could amount to discrimination.
Jaja referred to Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against citizens on certain grounds.
He argued that lawyers should not be allowed to use some titles that are not contained in statutes while other titles or professional ranks are rejected for the same reason.
The dispute highlights the long-standing importance of professional titles in the Nigerian legal profession.
“Barrister” has traditionally been used before the names of lawyers, while “Esquire” is commonly used as a suffix, particularly in formal correspondence.
In Nigeria, lawyers who are called to the Bar are entitled to practise as legal practitioners, subject to the rules governing the profession.
The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, has powers to regulate its proceedings and the conduct of matters before it. The latest directive, however, has prompted questions over whether those powers extend to determining the professional titles lawyers may use generally.
The NLS position is that any such restriction must have a clear basis in law.
The controversy also comes at a time when the Nigerian legal profession is dealing with broader debates over professional standards, regulation and the powers of institutions responsible for the affairs of lawyers.
The NLS maintained that its objection was not simply about the use of a particular word but about the need for legal institutions to operate within the limits of their powers.
It argued that professional rules and administrative directives should not override provisions contained in legislation.
The society’s position could therefore lead to further legal and professional debate over the scope of the CJN’s directive and the authority of institutions such as the LPPC and NBA to regulate professional titles.
For now, the directive remains a significant development for lawyers appearing before or dealing officially with the Supreme Court.
The NLS, however, has made it clear that it does not accept the basis for replacing “Barrister” with “Esquire”, insisting that professional regulation must be guided by clear legal authority.