Can the Registrar of the Supreme Court Stop Nigerian Lawyers from Using the Title “Barrister”? A Legal Opinion
Can the Registrar of the Supreme Court lawfully prohibit Nigerian lawyers from using the title “Barrister” or the prefix “Barr.”? This legal opinion examines the Legal Practitioners Act, constitutional principles, judicial authorities and the limits of administrative powers under Nigerian law.
By a Legal Practitioner
The recent directive reportedly issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria discouraging legal practitioners from using the title “Barrister” or the abbreviation “Barr.” has provoked an unusual level of discussion within the legal profession. The reactions have been divided. Some lawyers consider the directive a harmless attempt to standardise professional descriptions, while others see it as an administrative step that ventures beyond the powers granted by law.
The issue deserves careful examination because it is not about professional vanity or the choice of a title. It is about the limits of administrative authority and whether an official of the judiciary can, through a circular or directive, restrict a description that appears in an Act of the National Assembly.
Every public authority in Nigeria, irrespective of its importance, exercises only those powers that the law confers upon it. That principle lies at the heart of constitutional governance. Once an administrative decision appears to conflict with an existing statute, the question is no longer whether the policy is desirable but whether it is legally sustainable.
What Does the Law Say?
The starting point is the Legal Practitioners Act, the statute regulating admission into the legal profession and the right to practise in Nigeria.
Section 2(1) provides that a person whose name is entered on the Roll of Legal Practitioners maintained at the Supreme Court is entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor.
Section 24 goes further by defining a legal practitioner as a person entitled under the Act to practise as a barrister and solicitor, whether generally or for a specific purpose.
Those provisions are neither accidental nor decorative. Parliament deliberately adopted the expression “barrister and solicitor” in describing the professional status of every person called to the Nigerian Bar.
Nigeria does not operate separate professions of barristers and solicitors as England once did. Admission to the Nigerian Bar confers both capacities simultaneously. That is why lawyers are commonly described as legal practitioners while also being recognised in law as barristers and solicitors.
It follows that the expression “Legal Practitioner” is the statutory umbrella under which every enrolled lawyer falls. The words “barrister and solicitor” explain the nature of that professional qualification. One does not cancel out the other.
Can an Administrative Directive Change the Law?
This is where the debate becomes more significant.
No matter how well intentioned an administrative directive may be, it cannot alter the meaning of an Act of the National Assembly. That has long been settled by Nigerian courts.
The Constitution itself establishes the hierarchy of legal authority. Acts passed by the National Assembly rank above administrative directives, office memoranda and institutional circulars. Such administrative instruments exist to implement the law, not to modify it.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained this position. In Governor of Kaduna State v. Kagoma (1982) 6 SC 87, the Court stressed that every administrative action must remain within the limits prescribed by statute.
Perhaps the clearest recent authority is Comptroller-General of Customs v. Gusau (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 353, where the Supreme Court reiterated that administrative guidelines cannot override statutory provisions.
These authorities point in one direction. Administrative bodies administer the law; they do not rewrite it.
What Exactly Can the Registrar Regulate?
There is an important distinction that has been overlooked in much of the public discussion.
The Registrar undoubtedly possesses administrative responsibilities relating to the operations of the Supreme Court. Those responsibilities include prescribing forms, regulating court records, maintaining the Roll of Legal Practitioners and issuing procedural directions where authorised.
There would be nothing unusual if the Registry directed that names should appear in a particular format on official court documents or correspondence originating from the Court.
That, however, is a different question from telling every lawyer in Nigeria that the title “Barrister” should no longer be used.
The first concerns court administration.
The second concerns professional status.
The distinction is significant because the Legal Practitioners Act itself uses the expression “barrister and solicitor.” Unless that statutory language is amended, any attempt to prohibit its ordinary use raises an obvious legal difficulty.
Is There Any Law That Forbids the Title “Barrister”?
At present, no provision of the Legal Practitioners Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners or any subsidiary legislation expressly prohibits an enrolled lawyer from describing himself or herself as a barrister.
Equally, there is no statutory prohibition against using the abbreviation “Barr.”
If the legislature had intended to abolish that professional description, one would expect clear words to that effect. Nigerian courts do not infer prohibitions where none exist, particularly when the language in question appears repeatedly in the governing statute itself.
That is why the current debate cannot be resolved by reference to administrative preference alone. It requires clear legal authority.
Could Such a Directive Support Disciplinary Proceedings?
That question presents perhaps the greatest legal challenge.
Professional discipline is governed by law, not by administrative preference. Before any lawyer can be sanctioned, the alleged misconduct must be traceable to an identifiable legal obligation.
If disciplinary proceedings were commenced solely because a lawyer used the title “Barrister” or the abbreviation “Barr.”, difficult questions would inevitably arise.
Which provision of the Legal Practitioners Act has been breached?
Which Rule of Professional Conduct has been violated?
What legal instrument creates the offence?
Can an administrative directive create a new ground of professional misconduct?
Those questions would almost certainly require judicial determination, and any court examining the issue would be obliged to reconcile the directive with the language of the Legal Practitioners Act itself.
Final Thoughts
Professional bodies are entitled to encourage uniformity in official practice, and there is nothing objectionable in recommending that lawyers adopt “Legal Practitioner” or “Esq.” for official correspondence.
Encouragement, however, is different from prohibition.
The present controversy is ultimately a question of legal authority, not professional preference.
Until the National Assembly amends the Legal Practitioners Act or a competent regulatory instrument expressly provides otherwise, there is a compelling legal basis for the view that a duly enrolled Nigerian lawyer remains entitled to describe himself or herself as a barrister and solicitor, precisely because that is the language chosen by the law itself.
If the profession believes the terminology should change, the appropriate route is legislative amendment. Administrative directives cannot perform the work of Parliament. That distinction protects not only lawyers but also the broader constitutional principle that public authorities must act within the limits imposed by law.
About Author
