By Muyiwa Ayojimi Esq. LLM(UK), FCIS, FNIM, ACIArb
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) rank, conferred by the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee, has long stood as the highest mark of professional distinction in the Nigerian legal profession. It is a symbol of excellence forged in advocacy, courtroom mastery and contributions to the development of jurisprudence. Yet, as the legal profession evolves in step with Nigeria’s increasingly complex economy, the framework that defines this pinnacle of recognition appears, in some respects, to lag behind the reality it seeks to measure.
Modern legal practice is no longer confined to the courtroom. Increasingly, the most consequential legal work takes place in boardrooms, regulatory offices and transaction spaces where lawyers structure deals, design governance frameworks, and ensure institutional compliance. Corporate and company secretarial lawyers occupy a central position in this ecosystem. They advise boards of directors, guide listed and regulated companies, manage compliance with institutions such as the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and shape the legal architecture upon which investment and enterprise depend. In many respects, they are not merely support actors in the legal system; they are its architects in the commercial sphere.
Yet despite this impact, their work remains largely invisible within the SAN eligibility framework, which continues to privilege litigation-centric metrics such as court appearances, contested matters and appellate advocacy. The result is a structural imbalance in the recognition of legal excellence; one that elevates courtroom visibility over institutional influence, even where the latter may have broader economic significance.
This imbalance becomes more apparent when viewed alongside the inclusion of legal academics within the SAN framework. That development marked an important shift in principle: it acknowledged that legal excellence is not confined to advocacy, but also resides in scholarship, research and intellectual contributions to the development of law. If this recognition was necessary to reflect the importance of ideas in shaping legal systems, then it is difficult to ignore the equally compelling case for recognising those who shape the structures within which those legal systems operate in practice.
Comparative perspectives reinforce this point. In jurisdictions such as Canada, the King’s Counsel designation has evolved to recognise not only litigation excellence but also broader contributions to the legal profession, including advisory and public service roles.
In parts of Australia, the Senior Counsel framework similarly reflects a degree of flexibility, occasionally recognising specialist expertise beyond pure advocacy. In the United States, while no formal “silk” equivalent exists, corporate lawyers achieve elite professional standing through transactional impact, market recognition and governance influence, often reflected in leading legal rankings and institutional appointments. Even globally, governance professionals are formally recognised through institutions such as the The Chartered Governance Institute, underscoring the legitimacy of corporate legal expertise as a distinct professional domain.
Against this backdrop, the question is not whether corporate and company secretarial lawyers are deserving of recognition, but whether the current structure of the SAN framework adequately reflects the diversity of legal excellence in a modern economy. A compelling case can be made for the introduction of a third eligibility pathway within the SAN system—one that recognises “Distinguished Corporate, Commercial and Company Secretarial Practice” alongside the existing advocacy and academic tracks.
Such a reform would not dilute the prestige of the SAN rank; rather, it would deepen its legitimacy. It would allow recognition of excellence in high-value transactions, corporate governance leadership, regulatory engagement, and institutional advisory work. It would also align the legal profession more closely with the realities of Nigeria’s economic structure, where capital markets, corporate entities and regulatory frameworks play a central role in national development.
Naturally, any expansion of the framework must be accompanied by robust safeguards. Strict evidentiary requirements, independent verification of claims, structured scoring systems and confidential review mechanisms would be essential to preserve the integrity of the process. The objective is not to broaden access indiscriminately, but to ensure that excellence in all its modern forms is properly measured and fairly rewarded.
Ultimately, the SAN rank must reflect the full spectrum of legal excellence as it exists today, not as it existed decades ago. The legal profession has expanded, diversified and become more economically embedded than ever before. Recognition systems that fail to evolve risk preserving tradition at the expense of relevance.
If the law is to remain responsive to society, then its highest honours must reflect not only the advocates who speak within the courtroom, but also the architects who shape the systems that make those courtrooms meaningful. This is the time for the Legal Practitioner’s Act to reflect this milestone creation.
In this article