The Supreme Court’s directive discontinuing the use of “Barrister” as a prefix in official correspondence has triggered a legal debate among lawyers, law teachers and academics, extending beyond professional etiquette to questions of statutory interpretation, judicial administrative powers and the hierarchy of Nigerian laws.
While the memorandum, issued by the Chief Registrar on the directive of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, was presented as an administrative measure to standardise official communications before the apex court, lawyers remain divided over whether it merely regulates court practice or improperly interferes with a designation created by statute.
At its core are competing legal questions whether the memorandum merely regulates the format of official documents before the Supreme Court, which falls squarely within the Court’s administrative powers, or whether it effectively limits the use of a statutory professional designation beyond the Court’s procedural jurisdiction.
It also raises constitutional issues regarding the relationship between Acts of the National Assembly and administrative directives, the distinction between substantive legal rights and procedural regulation, and the extent of the judiciary’s inherent authority to prescribe standards governing proceedings before it.
According to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration), Igbinedion University, Okada, Prof Osaretin George Izevbuwa, the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s directive should first be distinguished from a judicial pronouncement delivered in a contested case.
He argued that the first question is whether the prohibition on the use of the prefix “Barrister” was made through an administrative directive of the Supreme Court or through a judgment arising from a properly constituted legal dispute.
Izevbuwa noted that Nigerian appellate courts have previously examined the status of the word “Barrister.”
He pointed to the decision in NBA v. Ofomata (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 128, where the court stated that “the appellation of ‘Barrister’ as a title before the name of a legal practitioner is unprofessional and improper.”
However, he observed that the Court of Appeal, in Ishaku & Anor v. Kantiok & Ors (2011) LPELR-8944(CA), took a broader view by recognising that “Barrister” is a descriptive title identifying a legal practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar rather than part of a person’s name.
The appellate court, he said, likened its use to professional prefixes such as “Dr”, “Justice” and “Hon”, holding that the inclusion of the title does not invalidate legal processes or affect a person’s legal identity.
Drawing from these authorities, Izevbuwa suggested that the present debate extends beyond courtroom etiquette to fundamental questions about the legal status of professional titles, the distinction between administrative directives and judicial precedent, and the extent of the Supreme Court’s administrative powers over legal practice.
According to one school of thought, the controversy is not about the desirability of using “Barrister” as a prefix but about whether an administrative directive can restrict the use of a professional designation recognised under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Douglas Ogbankwa, a lawyer, argued that Sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act expressly recognise every person called to the Nigerian Bar as a “Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court.”
In his view, because that status derives from an Act of the National Assembly, it cannot be altered, limited or removed through a memorandum or court administrative directive.
He contended that the Supreme Court Rules and internal memoranda exist to regulate court procedure rather than amend substantive rights created by legislation.
According to him, if uniformity in court filings is the objective, the restriction should be confined to practice before the Supreme Court through a formal practice direction rather than being interpreted as a prohibition on using a statutory designation.
Ogbankwa also warns that a broader interpretation of the directive could create uncertainty for lawyers whose professional identity has long incorporated the description “Barrister.”
However, another school of thought rejected the suggestion that the Supreme Court has abolished or prohibited the statutory description.
Bayo Akinlade, a lawyer, argued that many lawyers have misunderstood the memorandum.
According to him, the Supreme Court is not denying that lawyers are barristers; rather, it is correcting what he describes as the improper use of “Barrister” as an honorific prefix in official documents.
Akinlade maintains that a lawyer’s proper identity is the name appearing on the Roll of Legal Practitioners and that “Barrister” describes professional qualification rather than functioning as a prefix like “Mr”, “Mrs” or “Dr”.
Under this interpretation, he stated, lawyers remain “Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” but should not write “Barrister John Doe” in correspondence or court processes.
Instead, the professional description properly follows the name.
Supporting that position, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Eyimofe Atake, argued that the memorandum has been widely mischaracterised.
According to Atake, the directive is institutionally limited to official correspondence, records and engagements involving the Supreme Court and does not criminalise or prohibit social or informal usage.
He argued that the Legal Practitioners Act creates a professional status rather than a title, noting that while lawyers are enrolled as barristers and solicitors, the statute nowhere authorises “Barrister” as a prefix before a person’s name.
Atake further relies on Nigerian disciplinary authorities and comparative practice in jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Canada and Australia, where professional descriptions ordinarily appear after, rather than before, a lawyer’s name.
Whether sanctions against non-compliance by the Supreme Court will be sufficient to enforce restraint remains to be seen.
In this article