The Supreme Court of Nigeria has directed all litigation staff, legal practitioners, court registrars and lawyers attached to the apex court to discontinue the use of the title “Barrister” as a prefix to their names in all official engagements.

The directive was contained in a memorandum dated July 13, 2026, signed by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Kabir Akanbi.

Addressed to litigation staff, legal practitioners, court registrars and lawyers, the circular said the measure was part of efforts to uphold professional standards within the apex court.

The directive ordered all affected officers to immediately discontinue the use of the title in official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials and other official engagements connected with the Supreme Court.

The Chief Registrar also instructed Heads of Departments and Unit Heads to ensure strict compliance with the directive by all personnel under their supervision.

The memo did not state the reasons behind the policy beyond the need to uphold professional standards within the nation’s highest court.

The Supreme Court’s order comes weeks after the Council of Legal Education warned prospective lawyers against wearing wigs and gowns or presenting themselves as qualified legal practitioners before they are formally called to the Nigerian Bar.

The council said such conduct undermined the dignity of the legal profession and warned that violators could face disciplinary measures. It also reminded candidates that the use of legal regalia is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct and is reserved for duly qualified legal practitioners.

The development has sparked discussions within legal circles, where the title “Barrister” is commonly used by legal practitioners after being called to the Nigerian Bar.

Legal analysts however say the CJN’s directive reinforces the distinction between qualification and title, and seeks to align courtroom decorum at the Supreme Court with global best practice, where “Barrister” is not used as a formal prefix.

The Supreme Court did not indicate any sanctions for non-compliance, but heads of departments have been tasked with enforcing the new rule.

The Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, has instituted a N15 billion defamation suit against Adeniyi Adeyemi, Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), over allegations bordering on bribery, murder and abuse of office.

The suit, filed before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, seeks N10 billion in general damages, N5 billion in aggravated damages, N200 million as the cost of the action, and an order compelling Adeyemi to publish a full retraction and unconditional apology in five national newspapers and across all platforms where the allegations were circulated.

The legal action follows a pre-action notice issued on July 7, in which Gbajabiamila, through his counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kemi Pinheiro, demanded that Adeyemi withdraw the allegations and apologise within 72 hours.

The letter also directed Adeyemi to remove all videos and publications in which he accused the Chief of Staff of collecting a N400 million bribe through a proxy in connection with appointments into the PFIPC—an entity the Presidency has publicly disowned as non-existent.

Adeyemi had further alleged that Gbajabiamila orchestrated efforts to deploy security agencies against him and linked the presidential aide to the death of Babatunde Tanimola, whom he described as an intermediary between himself and the Chief of Staff.

In the statement of claim before the court, Gbajabiamila categorically denied the allegations, describing them as “false, baseless, malicious, reckless and entirely devoid of factual or evidential foundation.”

He maintained that he had never met, spoken with, or communicated with Adeyemi in any capacity and had never authorised any individual to act as his representative in soliciting or receiving money on his behalf.

According to the court documents, despite receiving the cease-and-desist letter, Adeyemi failed to retract the allegations. Instead, he reportedly granted an interview to social media personality Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, during which he admitted that he had never personally met Gbajabiamila and that his alleged dealings were conducted through the late Babatunde Tanimola.

The suit also cited another interview granted by Adeyemi on Channels Television’s Politics Today, aired on July 13 and anchored by Seun Okinbaloye, where he allegedly reiterated the substance of his earlier claims without issuing any retraction.

Gbajabiamila is asking the court to declare that the statements made and published by Adeyemi are false, malicious and defamatory.

In addition to the monetary claims, the Chief of Staff is seeking an order directing Adeyemi to publish a full retraction and unconditional apology in at least five national newspapers within seven days of the court’s judgment.

He is also requesting that the apology remain published across all relevant social media and electronic platforms for 30 consecutive days, alongside an order compelling the removal of every publication, video and recording containing the alleged defamatory statements.

Furthermore, the suit seeks a perpetual injunction restraining Adeyemi, his agents, privies or associates from making or publishing any further defamatory statements against Gbajabiamila, as well as 10 per cent post-judgment interest on the monetary awards until full payment is made.

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has overturned the Federal High Court judgment that nullified the timelines issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the conduct of political party primaries and the submission of candidates for the 2027 general elections.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, the three-member appellate panel held that INEC acted within the powers conferred on it by the Electoral Act, 2026, in issuing the timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 elections. The court consequently affirmed the validity of the electoral guidelines released by the commission.

The appellate court’s decision effectively restores INEC’s timetable, providing legal certainty for political parties preparing for the forthcoming elections and reaffirming the commission’s authority to regulate the electoral process within the framework of the law.

The ruling overturns an earlier decision delivered in May by the Federal High Court in Abuja, which had declared the timelines invalid. The lower court had held that INEC lacked the statutory authority to abridge or alter timelines stipulated under the Electoral Act, 2026, particularly those relating to the conduct of party primaries and the nomination of candidates.

With Thursday’s judgment, the Court of Appeal has resolved the legal dispute in favour of the electoral umpire, paving the way for political parties to continue preparations in line with INEC’s approved timetable for the 2027 general elections. The judgment is expected to provide greater certainty for stakeholders and reinforce the commission’s role in administering Nigeria’s electoral process.