The Nigerian Law Society (NLS) has challenged a directive by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, restricting the use of “Barrister” as a prefix by lawyers in official engagements at the Supreme Court and recommending “Esquire” as a suffix.
The directive was contained in 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 that the use of “Barrister” as a prefix should stop with immediate effect in official engagements at the apex court as part of efforts to maintain professional standards.
Reacting to the development, NLS Executive Director Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja argued that the directive was not grounded in the relevant statutory framework governing the Nigerian legal profession.
Jaja said the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962, recognises Nigerian lawyers called to the Bar as Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
According to him, using “Barrister” alone may be incomplete because it omits the designation “Solicitor,” but he questioned the legal foundation for replacing it with “Esquire.”
“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,” Jaja said.
He maintained that “Esquire,” “Barrister-At-Law” and “Attorney-At-Law” do not appear in the Legal Practitioners Act, according to the NLS’s interpretation.
“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.
Jaja further argued that neither the CJN, the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee nor the Nigerian Bar Association should impose requirements on lawyers that are not expressly provided for under the Act.
The NLS also linked the controversy to the ongoing dispute surrounding the Senior Counsel of Nigeria (SCN)designation, also referred to as the Blue Silks rank.
The organisation criticised arguments that lawyers should disregard the SCN designation because it is not expressly provided for in the Legal Practitioners Act.
According to Jaja, it would be contradictory to discourage the use of SCN on the basis that it is not expressly recognised by statute while recommending “Esquire,” which he said is similarly absent from the Act.
“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.
Jaja also alleged that treating the titles differently could amount to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
He further cited the historical development of the rank of King’s Counsel in the United Kingdom, arguing that professional legal titles do not necessarily have to originate directly from legislation.
According to him, the King’s Counsel tradition was later adapted in Nigeria through the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) rank.
The NLS maintained that the SCN designation conferred by the Nigerian Law Society and the Body of Senior Counsel of Nigeria was established through guidelines which it said draw authority from Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution and Section 19 of the National Assembly Service Commission Act, 2014.
The dispute has consequently widened beyond the appropriate use of “Barrister” and “Esquire,” raising broader questions about professional titles, regulatory authority and the statutory framework governing legal practitioners in Nigeria.
How did this story make you feel?
Join the conversation
Share a thoughtful response. Submissions may be reviewed before appearing.
