Nigerian Law Society Challenges CJN’s ‘Barrister’ Ban, Says Directive Lacks Legal Basis.

Nigerian Law Society Challenges CJN’s ‘Barrister’ Ban, Says Directive Lacks Legal Basis.

The Nigerian Law Society (NLS) has rejected a directive attributed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun, restricting lawyers and court officials from using the title “Barrister” as a prefix to their names in official engagements at the Supreme Court.

The directive was reportedly contained in a memorandum dated July 13, 2026, and signed by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court. The development has triggered debate within Nigeria’s legal community over the scope of the judiciary’s administrative powers and whether the restriction has sufficient statutory backing. Reports on the directive said it applies to official communications and engagements at the Supreme Court.

The NLS, however, argues that there is no clear legal provision authorizing such a ban. Its position centres on the Legal Practitioners Act, the principal legislation governing legal practice in Nigeria. Section 24 of the Act defines a legal practitioner as a person entitled to practice “as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor,” while Section 2 provides for entitlement to practice subject to the statutory requirements.

The legal debate is significant because Nigeria operates a fused legal profession in which practitioners are formally admitted as barristers and solicitors. The terminology has long been associated with the country’s legal profession, although the Legal Practitioners Act principally uses the statutory expression “legal practitioner.” Legal scholarship and previous judicial decisions have also recognized the use of “barrister” within the Nigerian legal system.

The controversy comes shortly after the 2026 Call to the Bar ceremonies, during which more than 6,000 new lawyers were admitted to the Nigerian Bar. Premium Times reported that the Body of Benchers urged newly called lawyers to maintain professional standards and avoid practices considered inconsistent with established legal conventions, including the premature use of “Barrister” as a prefix before their names.

The disagreement therefore raises a broader question about the distinction between regulating professional conduct within the courts and creating restrictions that may require a clear statutory or regulatory foundation. While the Supreme Court has defended the directive as an administrative measure concerning official court engagements, the NLS’s objection highlights the importance of ensuring that professional restrictions remain anchored in legislation or properly constituted rules.

The issue also reflects a continuing conversation within Nigeria’s legal profession about the respective powers of the judiciary, the General Council of the Bar, the Body of Benchers and professional associations. The Legal Practitioners Act establishes several statutory bodies and assigns specific responsibilities relating to legal practice, professional discipline and admission to the Bar.

The controversy remains principally a question of legal interpretation and professional regulation. Any definitive determination of whether the directive exceeds the CJN’s authority would ultimately depend on the applicable laws, rules governing Supreme Court practice and, if formally challenged, the position taken by a competent court.