By Asukwo Mendie Archibong Esq.
A memorandum issued by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria directing litigation staff, legal practitioners, court registrars and lawyers to discontinue the use of the title “Barrister” as a prefix in official correspondence has sparked legal debate, with some practitioners arguing that the directive exceeds administrative authority and conflicts with existing law.
The memorandum, dated July 13, 2026, and signed by Chief Registrar Kabir E. Akanbi, Esq., states that the directive was issued on the instruction of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. It describes the use of “Barrister” as a prefix to names as “inappropriate and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected within the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
It further directs all affected officers to discontinue the use of the title before their names in official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials and other official engagements with immediate effect, while instructing heads of departments and unit heads to ensure compliance.
The directive has generated widespread discussion within Nigeria’s legal community, with lawyers questioning whether an administrative memorandum can restrict the use of a professional designation expressly recognized by statute.
Nigeria inherited its legal system from the English common law tradition. Although England historically maintained separate professions for barristers and solicitors, Nigeria operates a fused legal profession under the Legal Practitioners Act, meaning every lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar is qualified to practice as both a barrister and solicitor.
According to legal practitioner Asukwo Mendie Archibong, the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, remains the principal legislation regulating legal practice in the country.
Section 2(1) of the Act provides: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the Roll.”
Archibong argues that the provision unequivocally recognizes every enrolled legal practitioner as both a Barrister and Solicitor. He also cites Section 4 of the Act, which provides that persons called to the Bar and enrolled are entitled to practice. In his view, enrollment automatically confers the statutory status of a Barrister and Solicitor, a legal status that cannot be altered through an administrative memorandum.
He further notes that every lawyer admitted to the Nigerian Bar receives a Call to Bar Certificate bearing the designation:
“Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
Likewise, the Roll maintained under Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act is officially designated as the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors, making the description “Barrister” a reflection of a lawyer’s statutory status.
Archibong contends that neither the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Legal Practitioners Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, the Body of Benchers Act, nor the Legal Education (Consolidation) Act prohibits legal practitioners from using “Barr.” or “Barrister” as a professional prefix.
He relies on the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, arguing that where lawmakers intended to prohibit conduct, they did so expressly. In the absence of such a provision, he says, an administrative memorandum cannot create one.
Archibong also argues that administrative directives cannot override Acts of the National Assembly. He cites the Supreme Court’s decisions in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1981) 10 SC 1 and Governor of Kaduna State v. Kagoma (1982) 6 SC 87, which held that administrative actions and directives cannot amend or supersede statutory provisions.
He further references A.-G., Abia State v. A.-G. Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, which reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and Acts of the National Assembly over executive or administrative actions.
According to Archibong, the Chief Registrar’s powers are administrative and do not extend to amending legislation, redefining the legal status of practitioners or abolishing professional titles recognized by statute. He maintains that any such change would require legislative amendment or a binding judicial determination.
He also notes that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, regulate professional etiquette, advertising, correspondence and conduct but contain no provision prohibiting lawyers from identifying themselves as “Barr.” or “Barrister.”
Archibong concludes that every lawyer enrolled in Nigeria is, by law, a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, and that while the Supreme Court may regulate the format of correspondence within its own administrative operations, an administrative memorandum cannot extinguish a statutory professional designation unless the Legal Practitioners Act is amended or a competent court upholds such a restriction.
