The recent directive by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) discouraging legal practitioners from addressing themselves as “Barrister” in court has generated widespread debate within the legal community. While many practitioners have viewed the directive as a departure from long-standing practice, judicial authorities show that the position is firmly rooted in Nigerian law and legal ethics.
The issue is not whether a person called to the Nigerian Bar is a barrister. Every person called to the Nigerian Bar is duly enrolled as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The question is whether “Barrister” should be used as a formal title preceding a lawyer’s name.
The answer has already been provided by the courts.
In Nigerian Bar Association v. Ofomata (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 128 at 133, the Supreme Court made its position unequivocally clear when it held:
«”The appellation of ‘Barrister’ as a title before the name of a legal practitioner is unprofessional and improper.”»
This pronouncement leaves little room for ambiguity. The Supreme Court regarded the use of “Barrister” as a prefix to a lawyer’s name not merely as undesirable but as inconsistent with the standards of professional conduct expected of legal practitioners.
Years earlier, the had explained the legal nature of the word “Barrister” in Ishaku & Anor v. Kantiok & Ors (2011) LPELR-8944(CA). Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Orji-Abadua observed that “Barrister” is not a person’s name but a descriptive title denoting a lawyer who has been called to the Bar. The court explained that, in Nigeria’s fused legal profession, every person called to the Bar is both a barrister and a solicitor, making the word merely descriptive of professional status rather than part of a person’s identity.
The court further likened the expression to prefixes such as “Dr.”, “Mr.”, “Mrs.”, “Hon.”, and “Justice”. These titles describe status or qualification; they do not constitute an individual’s legal name. Consequently, the use or omission of “Barrister” neither creates nor removes a person’s legal identity.
Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that “Barrister” is a professional descriptor, the later decision of the Supreme Court in NBA v. Ofomata went a step further by declaring its use as a title before a legal practitioner’s name to be unprofessional and improper. Under Nigeria’s judicial hierarchy, the Supreme Court’s pronouncements are binding on all lower courts and authorities.
Viewed against these authorities, the Chief Justice of Nigeria’s recent directive is not a creation of a new rule. Rather, it is an administrative reinforcement of an existing legal position already settled by the Supreme Court. The directive seeks to align courtroom practice with judicial precedent and the ethical standards governing the legal profession.
Legal practitioners remain barristers and solicitors by virtue of their call to the Nigerian Bar. However, the courts have drawn a distinction between possessing the professional qualification and using “Barrister” as a formal prefix to one’s name. The former defines a lawyer’s professional status; the latter has been judicially described as improper.
The debate, therefore, should not be about whether lawyers are barristers. They undoubtedly are. The real issue is whether “Barrister” should be used as a title before a lawyer’s name in official and professional settings. Nigerian appellate courts—particularly the Supreme Court—have answered that question in the negative.
For that reason, the Chief Justice’s directive is best understood not as a break from legal tradition but as an affirmation of settled judicial authority and professional ethics.
