Nigeria's Chief Justice, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, issued a circular on 13 July 2026 prohibiting the use of the title 'Barrister' as a prefix to names in official engagements, sparking a muted debate. However, critics argue the move is a piddling distraction from the systemic ailments plaguing the legal and judicial vocations in Nigeria.
A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Reform
Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a lawyer and professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, contends that the circular suffers from a crisis of wrong priorities. 'It is evidently piddling to fixate on paraphernalia and prefixes in a country whose legal and judicial vocations suffer terminal tarnish from many more serious ailments,' he writes.
The CJN's directive, titled 'Prohibition of the Use of the Title ‘Barrister’ as a Prefix to Names,' was issued through the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court. It explicitly targets 'official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials, and any other official engagements,' but leaves ambiguous what constitutes an official engagement, raising questions about political rallies, cabinet meetings, or convocation grounds.
Comparative Lessons from Kenya and India
Odinkalu highlights Kenya's transformative approach under Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, who assumed office in 2011. Mutunga launched a four-year Judiciary Transformation Framework in May 2012, which diagnosed the legal system as having a 'founding history of dominance, power, prestige and remoteness, as opposed to service and equality.' The framework noted that the architecture, rules, dress code, and rituals had 'uprooted it from social reality,' making the system appear 'alien and insensitive.'
Kenyan judges voted to discard wigs, describing them as 'torturous,' 'colonial relics,' 'cumbersome,' 'lack uniformity,' 'uncomfortable,' and 'antique.' They also redesigned the judicial robe and replaced 'My Lord' with 'Your Honour' (or 'Mheshimiwa' in Kiswahili). Kenya's courts have not collapsed; instead, they have made progress, proving that such reforms are feasible.
India offers another example. In 2011, the Bar in Punjab and Haryana abolished addressing the bench as 'My Lord' or 'Your Lordship,' calling them 'relics of the colonial past.' In June 2022, Chief Justice Srinivasan Muralidhar of the Orissa High Court issued a notice urging advocates to avoid 'My Lord,' 'Your Lordship,' 'Your Honour,' or 'Hon'ble,' suggesting 'Sir' as a decorous alternative.
The Colonial Baggage of the 'Barrister' Title
The prefix 'Barrister' is itself a colonial inheritance. The legal profession in England has been divided between barristers and solicitors for five centuries. Christopher Sapara Williams became Nigeria's first barrister and solicitor in 1888, 18 years after the founding of the Law Society of England and Wales and six years before the Bar Council. The title 'Barrister' caught on and persists in Nigerian culture, with local variations like 'Deelaw' for lawyer.
Odinkalu points out that the term 'Barrister' only partially describes a lawyer's role, making it a misrepresentation. However, he stresses that this is minor compared to the deeper issues afflicting Nigeria's legal profession. The CJN missed an opportunity to engage in a consultative process to transform the 'pointless antiquarianisms' that define the legal and judicial process.
Three Substantial Objections to the Circular
Odinkalu outlines three objections. First, the circular prioritizes superficial matters over serious ailments like corruption and inefficiency. Second, it appears as a regimental diktat rather than an inclusive reform. Third, there is a 'physician heal thyself' aspect, as the judiciary itself clings to colonial titles like 'My Lord' for female judges.
The CJN's rationale that 'Barrister' is 'inappropriate and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected within the Supreme Court' is commendable, but the approach is flawed. The circular fails to address the root causes of the legal profession's malaise, leaving the mission and ethos of the institutions unredeemed.
A Call for Broader Reform
Odinkalu concludes that how Nigeria dresses and addresses its legal and judicial vocations is important, but more critical is redressing the lost mission and ethos of these institutions. The Chief Justice may have missed an opportunity with her 'piddling circular,' but it is not too late to retrieve a sense of direction. He urges a more holistic, consultative approach akin to Kenya's transformation framework, which involved magistrates, judges, judicial workers, the public, political leaders, the media, communities, and citizens.
