{"id":92201,"date":"2026-08-04T11:32:54","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T11:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/?p=92201"},"modified":"2026-08-04T11:32:54","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T11:32:54","slug":"absence-of-criminality-does-not-confer-propriety-the-supreme-court-directive-and-the-impropriety-of-barrister-as-a-title-prefix-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/absence-of-criminality-does-not-confer-propriety-the-supreme-court-directive-and-the-impropriety-of-barrister-as-a-title-prefix-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Absence of Criminality Does Not Confer Propriety: The Supreme Court Directive and the Impropriety of \u201cBARRISTER\u201d As A Title Prefix"},"content":{"rendered":"
By: Sylvester Udemeze<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I have read the intervention credited to my respected learned senior, Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN, under the headline:\u00a0 \u201cSupreme Court Circular Does Not Criminalise Calling Lawyers \u2018Barrister\u2019\u2014Ubani SAN Says Directive Applies to Official Records, Not Social Usage.\u201d With the greatest respect to the Learned Silk, the proposition that the recent directive of the Supreme Court does not create a criminal offence is correct but largely beside the point. No reasonable interpretation of the directive suggests that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court has purported to create a criminal offence, prescribe a punishment or convert the inappropriate use of \u201cBarrister\u201d as a prefix into a crime. The real issue is not whether saying \u201cBarrister John Doe\u201d has suddenly become a criminal offence. The real questions are:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(a). Whether \u201cBarrister\u201d is an appropriate title prefix before the name of a legal practitioner;<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(b). Whether its use in that manner accords with the standards and traditions of the legal profession;<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(c). Whether a subsisting professional decision has already pronounced upon the practice; and<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(c). Whether the latest Supreme Court directive reinforces that established professional position.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On these questions, the answer is clear: the use of \u201cBarrister\u201d as a title prefix before a lawyer\u2019s name is inappropriate, improper and unprofessional. The Supreme Court does not need to criminalise the practice before lawyers and members of the public can acknowledge that it is wrong.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(2). CRIMINALITY IS NOT THE ISSUE<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Learned Silk reportedly relies on section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law. That constitutional principle is elementary, fundamental and indisputable. However, with respect, it does not resolve the question under discussion because not every improper, unprofessional, grammatically defective or socially inappropriate practice is necessarily a criminal offence. A practice may be professionally unacceptable without being criminal; administratively prohibited without being criminal; grammatically inappropriate without being criminal; contrary to etiquette without being criminal; or inconsistent with institutional standards without attracting imprisonment or a fine. For example, a lawyer may dress improperly before a superior court without thereby committing a criminal offence. A lawyer may submit an inadequately formatted court process, address the court improperly or breach an administrative filing requirement without necessarily becoming criminally liable. Yet, none of these ceases to be improper merely because the conduct has not been criminalised.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Accordingly, invoking section 36(12) of the Constitution answers a question that the Supreme Court directive did not ask. The memorandum does not purport to enact legislation. It does not define an offence. It prescribes no criminal penalty. Rather, it regulates professional and official usage within the institutional sphere of the Supreme Court. The report itself states that the memorandum, dated 13 July 2026 and signed by the Chief Registrar, conveys the direction of the Chief Justice of Nigeria that using \u201cBarrister\u201d as a prefix is inappropriate and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected within the Supreme Court. It consequently directs its discontinuance in official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials and other official engagements. That is the point: professional regulation and institutional propriety, not criminalisation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(3). THE DIRECTIVE DID NOT CREATE THE PROFESSIONAL POSITION<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court directive did not originate the proposition that \u201cBarrister\u201d should not be used as a title prefix. It merely restates and reinforces a position that had already received authoritative professional pronouncement. In the case of Nigerian Bar Association v. Ofomata (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 128 at 133, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee held that \u201dThe appellation of \u2018Barrister\u2019 as a title before the name of a legal practitioner is unprofessional and improper.\u201d This is not an obscure social-media opinion. It is a reported decision of the statutory body (a Statutory Tribunal) charged with considering and determining allegations of professional misconduct against legal practitioners in Nigeria. Sections 11 and 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act establish the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), regulate its proceedings and recognise the binding legal effect of its directions unless set aside in appeal. As I explained in my earlier article on this subject, the decision of the LPDC is not to be laughed off or ignored merely because an individual lawyer disagrees with it. The professional position remains that prefixing a lawyer\u2019s name with \u201cBarrister\u201d is unprofessional and improper. Therefore, the recent directive of the Supreme Court should be understood against that background. It is not attempting to create a new crime. It is reinforcing an already established standard of professional nomenclature.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(4). \u201cBARRISTER\u201d DESCRIBES A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; IT IS NOT AN HONORIFIC PREFIX<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The central error arises from treating the word \u201cbarrister\u201d as though it belongs to the same grammatical and conventional category as \u201cMr,\u201d \u201cMrs,\u201d \u201cMiss,\u201d \u201cMs,\u201d \u201cDr,\u201d \u201cProfessor\u201d or \u201cChief.\u201d With due respect, it does not. A barrister is a person qualified to practise in a particular professional capacity. The word is principally a noun describing a member of the legal profession or a professional qualification. It is not ordinarily an honorific designed to be placed before a person\u2019s name. There is nothing inherently wrong with associating the word \u201cbarrister\u201d with the name of a lawyer. The objection is specifically to its use as a title prefix before a lawyer\u2019s name. Thus, the following descriptions may be appropriate, depending on the context: (a). Mark Ojo, Barrister-at-Law; (b). Mark Ojo, Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria; (c). Mark Ojo, Legal Practitioner; (d). Mark Ojo, Esq.; (e). Mr Mark Ojo; or (f). Mark Ojo, a lawyer. What is inappropriate is: (a). Barrister Mark Ojo; (b). Barr. Mark Ojo; or (c). Barrister Mrs Jane Ojo. As I stated in my 2017 surrejoinder, the question is not whether the word \u201cbarrister\u201d may ever appear beside a lawyer\u2019s name. It may. The issue is whether it should be converted into an honorific and placed before the name. That is the practice pronounced unprofessional and improper in NBA v. Ofomata.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(5). NO ONE IS MANDATING THE USE OF \u201cESQ.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is also necessary to correct another possible misunderstanding. No lawyer is required to use \u201cEsq.\u201d No one is being compelled or even advised to adopt any title whatsoever. A lawyer may simply use his or her name. The argument is only that where a person elects to use a professional description or title, it should be used appropriately, maturely and in accordance with accepted professional convention. Accordingly, a legal practitioner may write: (a). \u201cMark Ojo\u201d without adding anything. He may also write: \u201cMark Ojo, Esq\u201d. or: \u201cMark Ojo<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria\u201d. What he ought not to write is: \u201cBarrister Mark Ojo\u201d. This distinction is important. The campaign against the inappropriate use of \u201cBarrister\u201d as a prefix is not a campaign to impose \u201cEsq.\u201d as a compulsory substitute. It is a call for restraint, maturity and professional correctness.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(6). WITH DUE RESPECT TO LEARNED SILK UBANI, OFFICIAL USAGE AND SOCIAL USAGE ARE NOT ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED FROM EACH OTHER<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Learned Silk is right to observe that the immediate operational scope of the Supreme Court memorandum concerns official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials and official engagements within or involving the Court. The circular should not be stretched beyond its wording. However, contrary to the learned silk\u2019s submission, it does not follow that the use of \u201cBarrister\u201d as a prefix suddenly becomes grammatically, socially or professionally appropriate outside the registry. An official directive may have a defined institutional scope while also reflecting a broader professional standard. Besides, as earlier noted, the case of NBA V OFOMATA had declared use of barrister as a title prefix by lawyers to be unprofessional and inappropriate. Further, the Supreme Court has not claimed authority to punish every member of the public who casually calls a lawyer \u201cBarrister.\u201d Nor can a lawyer reasonably be blamed merely because an uninformed client, neighbour or acquaintance addresses him in that manner. The duty and responsibility lie on lawyers themselves to refrain from introducing or advertising or formally presenting themselves as \u201cBarrister John Doe.\u201d They should also, through courteous correction and proper personal example, discourage the perpetuation of the error. Members of the public mostly adopted the usage because lawyers themselves encouraged it. Many lawyers print \u201cBarrister\u201d or \u201cBarr.\u201d before their names on signboards, complimentary cards, social-media profiles, letterheads, wedding invitations, political posters and ceremonial programmes. It would therefore be disingenuous for the profession to create and promote the practice and later place the entire blame on members of the public. Professional reform must begin with lawyers.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(7). THE ABSENCE OF A CRIMINAL PENALTY DOES NOT CONFER PROPRIETY<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The suggestion that the circular does not criminalise the usage may unintentionally distract from the essential distinction between legality in the narrow criminal sense and professional propriety. A person does not acquire a professional entitlement to do something merely because no criminal penalty has been prescribed for it. The absence of criminalisation does not transform an improper expression into a proper one; does not transform an unprofessional practice into professional conduct; does not transform a grammatical error into correct English; does not transform an unsuitable title into an appropriate honorific; or does not transform institutional indiscipline into acceptable professional behaviour. Therefore, the relevant question should not be, \u201cWill anyone be imprisoned for calling a lawyer \u2018Barrister\u2019?\u201d The proper question is, \u201cIs \u2018Barrister\u2019 an appropriate title prefix before a lawyer\u2019s name?\u201d The answer supplied by NBA v. Ofomata and now reinforced institutionally by the Supreme Court directive is No.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(8). \u201cINDEED, EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH IT\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In my earlier intervention, I wrote that, indeed, everything is wrong with the use of \u201cBarrister\u201d as an honorific title before a lawyer\u2019s name. I remain respectfully of that view. Used as a prefix, it is: (a). professionally inappropriate; (b). legally unsupported as a title prefix; (c). inconsistent with the reported decision in NBA v. Ofomata; (d). grammatically awkward; (e). socially pretentious and unnecessary; (f). alien to the established tradition from which the Nigerian legal profession substantially derives; and (g). capable of reducing a noble professional qualification to an instrument of vain self-advertisement. This does not mean that the word \u201cbarrister\u201d is forbidden in every context. It is perfectly proper to describe a qualified person as a barrister, or to state that a person is a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. What is objectionable is the invention of \u201cBarrister\u201d or \u201cBarr.\u201d as an honorific prefix.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(9). COMMENDATION TO THE SUPREME COURT<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I commend the Supreme Court for taking this singular and important step. The directive by the Supreme Court will, to some extent, help restore sanity to a profession and to a society that has become unnecessarily and regrettably obsessed with vain, inflated and inappropriate titles. The legal profession ought to lead by example. Lawyers should be identified by the quality of their learning, integrity, advocacy, professional discipline and service to justice, not by the multiplication of ornamental title prefixes. A person does not become more learned, more competent or more respectable because \u201cBarrister\u201d is placed before his name. Indeed, the dignity of the legal profession lies not in self-conferred appellations but in fidelity to law, justice, ethics and honour.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(10). CONCLUSION<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
With profound respect, the Learned Silk\u2019s clarification on the absence of criminal liability is correct but does not displace the real point. The Supreme Court circular does not criminalise the use of \u201cBarrister\u201d as a prefix. It does not need to. The circular is an administrative and professional directive that regulates official usage within its stated sphere; affirms that the prefix is inconsistent with expected professional standards; reinforces the subsisting professional pronouncement in NBA v. Ofomata; and provides the legal profession with another opportunity to abandon an immature and inappropriate practice. No one is required to use \u201cEsq.\u201d or any title at all. However, anyone who chooses to employ a title or professional description should do so correctly. Accordingly, although an uninformed member of the public commits no crime by casually saying \u201cBarrister John,\u201d a legal practitioner should neither adopt nor encourage \u201cBarrister\u201d as a title prefix. The issue is not criminality. The issue is correctness, propriety, professionalism and institutional discipline. And on that score, indeed, everything remains wrong with using \u201cBarrister\u201d as a prefix before a lawyer\u2019s name.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Respectfully,<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Proctor,<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Reality Ministry of Truth Law and Justice (TRM)<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
08021365545.<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
udems@therealityministry.ngo.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Sylvester Udemeze I have read the intervention credited to my respected learned senior, Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN, under the headline:\u00a0 \u201cSupreme Court Circular Does Not Criminalise Calling Lawyers \u2018Barrister\u2019\u2014Ubani SAN Says Directive Applies to Official Records, Not Social Usage.\u201d With the greatest respect to the Learned Silk, the proposition that the recent directive […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":50924,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[17,5,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-featured","category-news","category-opinions"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t