Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has received support from the Body of Benchers (BoB) over her decision to stop lawyers from using the title “Barrister” as a prefix to their names in official correspondence.
The move is part of a broader conversation about removing colonial-era practices from Nigeria’s legal system and replacing them with approaches that better reflect the country’s present-day legal profession.
Similar reforms have been introduced in other African countries. In Kenya, former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga introduced changes that moved the judiciary away from traditional British courtroom practices, including the use of wigs, robes and the honorific “My Lord.” Judges began using “Your Honour,” while lawyers were permitted to appear in court in formal suits without wigs and robes.
Malawi also took steps to reconsider the traditional courtroom dress code. In 2019, its Constitutional Court suspended the requirement for lawyers and judges to wear the traditional white wigs and black robes, partly because of the country’s hot climate and concerns about maintaining a dress code inherited from the colonial period.
Burkina Faso has similarly explored locally produced African courtroom clothing as an alternative to traditional European-style legal attire.
In Nigeria, attention has increasingly turned to the continued use of colonial-era practices, including wigs, robes and certain professional titles.
The word “Barrister” itself has its origins in medieval England. It was derived from the “Bar,” the area in courtrooms and Inns of Court that separated judges and legal practitioners from members of the public. Over time, the term came to describe lawyers qualified to represent clients in court.
Nigeria adopted the terminology during British colonial rule. However, unlike England, where barristers and solicitors operate as separate branches of the legal profession, Nigeria combines both roles. A lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar is therefore recognised as both a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court.
The title eventually became widely used by Nigerian lawyers as a professional prefix, similar to the way “Doctor” is commonly used by medical practitioners.
However, the practice has previously attracted criticism from professional and regulatory bodies. In 2017, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, in NBA v. Ofomata, described the use of “Barrister” before a lawyer’s name as “unprofessional and improper.”
The issue resurfaced following a memo issued by Justice Kekere-Ekun on July 13, 2026. The CJN directed lawyers and court officials to stop using “Barrister” as a prefix in official correspondence.
She described the practice as inappropriate and inconsistent with the professional standards expected within the Supreme Court and directed litigation staff, legal practitioners and court registrars to discontinue its use in official documents, records, identification materials and other official engagements.
The CJN also instructed heads of departments and units across the country’s courts to ensure that the directive was followed.
The directive has received support from the Body of Benchers, which has previously expressed concern about the increasing use of “Barrister” as a title.
The Chairman of the Body of Benchers, HRM Albert Akpomuje, SAN, said the title had become particularly common among lawyers, including politicians who use it to publicly identify themselves as members of the legal profession even when they are not actively practising.
The Body of Benchers described the practice as unprofessional and argued that lawyers should be recognised through their competence, conduct, hard work and diligence rather than by attaching “Barrister” to their names.
The body also noted that previous Chief Justices, including Justice Mohammed Uwais, had warned against the practice during Nigerian Bar Association conferences, but the use of the title had continued to increase, particularly among younger lawyers.
However, the CJN’s directive has also attracted opposing views. Some have questioned whether the Chief Justice has the administrative authority to restrict the use of a professional designation recognised under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Those raising concerns have cited the Court of Appeal decision in Ishaku & Anor v. Kantiok & Ors, where the court held that using the prefix “Barrister” does not change a person’s fundamental legal identity or invalidate a legal petition.
As discussions around judicial reform continue, the debate over professional titles has also opened a wider conversation about the need to review other colonial-era practices and language that remain embedded in Nigeria’s legal system.
