There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the recent communication from the Registrar of the Supreme Court concerning the use of the title “Barrister.”
Some have interpreted the directive to mean that it is now unlawful for anyone to address a legal practitioner as “Barrister.” With respect, I do not believe that is the correct interpretation.
In my view, the directive is essentially an administrative and professional guideline regulating how legal practitioners should describe themselves in official documents, particularly court processes and formal correspondence. It is directed at lawyers in the conduct of their professional practice, not at members of the public in their everyday interactions.
The circular does not create a criminal offence. It does not make it a crime for anyone to call a lawyer “Barrister,” nor does it render a lawyer liable simply because another person chooses to address him or her by that title. Criminal liability can only arise where an Act of the National Assembly expressly creates an offence, and the Registrar’s directive is certainly not such legislation.
The practical effect of the directive, therefore, is that lawyers filing processes in court or writing officially to courts, institutions, or individuals should comply with the prescribed professional designation and refrain from describing themselves as “Barrister” where the directive prohibits it.
Any issue arising from non-compliance would ordinarily be one of professional or administrative regulation, not criminal culpability.
On the other hand, if a client, colleague, friend, or member of the public chooses to address a legal practitioner as “Barrister,” the lawyer cannot reasonably be said to be in breach of the directive merely because of the manner in which another person addresses him or her.
We should, therefore, avoid giving the directive an interpretation that it neither expresses nor intends. It is important to distinguish between official professional usage by lawyers and informal social usage by members of the public.
As lawyers, we must comply with lawful administrative directives issued in the regulation of our profession. At the same time, we should be careful not to attribute legal consequences to such directives beyond what they actually provide.
That, in my respectful opinion, is the proper understanding of the Supreme Court Registrar’s directive.
Dr. M. Onyekachi Ubani, SAN
Legal Practitioner & Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
