For decades, the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) has represented the pinnacle of legal practice in Nigeria.

It is a badge of excellence, prestige and influence, reserved for lawyers who have distinguished themselves in advocacy, scholarship, integrity and service to the profession.

Yet, increasingly, the rank has found itself at the centre of uncomfortable conversations about ethics, abuse of court process, forum shopping, frivolous litigation and the responsibility of senior lawyers to the administration of justice.

That debate gained fresh momentum on June 19 when Justice Habeeb Abiru of the Supreme Court suggested that holders of the SAN rank should be subjected to periodic reviews to determine whether they still deserve the privilege.

The proposal, made in an apex court judgment, has reopened a fundamental question: should the SAN rank be treated as a lifetime honour, or should continued possession of the silk depend on sustained ethical conduct and meaningful contributions to the profession?

For many lawyers, Justice Abiru merely gave voice to concerns that have been simmering within the Bench and Bar for years.

The issue is not whether senior lawyers should represent unpopular clients.

Most lawyers agree that every litigant is entitled to legal representation, regardless of how weak or unpopular a case may appear.

Rather, the concern is whether counsel should knowingly pursue hopeless claims, abuse court processes, engage in forum shopping or deploy litigation purely as a tool for delay.

That distinction lies at the heart of Justice Abiru’s intervention.

The case that triggered the intervention
Justice Abiru’s comments arose from an appeal filed by Dr Stephen Olusegun Ogidan against the forfeiture of N1.5 billion traced to him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Court records showed that Ogidan, a former consultant to the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL), was investigated for alleged bribery, money laundering and criminal breach of trust.

The EFCC claimed its investigations established reasonable suspicion that the N1.5 billion represented proceeds of unlawful activities.

To avoid prosecution, Ogidan entered a plea bargain and agreed to refund the money.

Following the refund, the EFCC commenced forfeiture proceedings. The Federal High Court granted interim and final forfeiture orders, which were subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Ogidan nevertheless proceeded to the Supreme Court, which unanimously dismissed the appeal.

In the lead judgment, Justice Abiru expressed astonishment that a litigant who had voluntarily refunded the money under a plea arrangement would challenge its forfeiture.

More significantly, he questioned why two Senior Advocates of Nigeria accepted briefs in what he viewed as an attempt to ridicule the judicial process.

It was against this backdrop that he suggested periodic reviews of the SAN rank to determine whether holders continue to contribute positively to the profession and deserve to retain the distinction.

Should the rank remain simply recognition of advocacy excellence attained at a particular point in a lawyer’s career? Or should it serve as a continuing certification of ethical leadership and professional responsibility?

The answer may determine whether Justice Abiru’s proposal remains an observation in a judgment or evolves into a formal reform agenda for the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC).

Growing judicial frustration
The concerns did not begin with Justice Abiru.

Over the years, judges and senior members of the Bar have repeatedly lamented what they see as increasing abuse of judicial processes by some members of the Inner Bar.

At virtually every SAN conferment ceremony, newly elevated silks are reminded that the rank is not merely a reward for professional success but an obligation to uphold the highest ethical standards.

At the September 29, 2025 conferment ceremony, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun delivered one such warning.

She described the rank as recognition of years of dedicated service, commitment to the rule of law and exceptional contributions to the profession.

“The conferment of this rank is a rigorous process, reflecting the high expectations placed upon those who bear the title,” she said.

“It signifies not only professional excellence, but also a commitment to ethical conduct and the upholding of the integrity of the legal profession.”

The CJN reminded the new SANs that the rank remained a privilege, not a right.

“The privilege can, and indeed, will be withdrawn in appropriate circumstances where it is abused,” she warned.

Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has expressed similar concerns.

Following an overseas tribunal decision in 2025 involving allegations against a prominent Nigerian lawyer, Fagbemi warned that misconduct by SANs damages not only individual reputations but also the image of Nigeria’s legal system.

He said: “We must reverse the perception that the rank of SAN confers immunity from discipline.

“We cannot defame our calling abroad while flattering ourselves as silks.”

He urged the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) to play a more active role in regulating its members rather than leaving discipline solely to the LPPC and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

A history of judicial rebukes
Justice Abiru’s intervention is notable not because judges have never criticised SANs before, but because of the remedy he proposed.

Nigerian courts have repeatedly imposed punitive costs against senior lawyers for frivolous applications and abuse of process.

One of the most prominent examples occurred in 2020 when the Supreme Court imposed N30 million costs each on Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) over applications seeking a review of its judgment in the Bayelsa governorship dispute.

Representing the All Progressives Congress and its candidates, the two senior lawyers argued that the court should revisit its decision nullifying the election victory of David Lyon and Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo.

The apex court disagreed. In a ruling delivered by Justice Amina Augie, the applications were dismissed and punitive costs awarded against both counsel.

Beyond judicial sanctions, several SANs have had their rank suspended or withdrawn by the LPPC, including former Attorney-General of the Federation Michael Aondoakaa, former Abia State Attorney-General Uche Ihediwa, Chief Ajibola Aribisala, Chief Kunle Kalejaiye, and Beluolisa Nwofor, among others.

Most later regained the rank after meeting conditions imposed by the LPPC or succeeding on appeal.

These cases show that the silk has never been entirely immune from discipline.

Justice Abiru’s proposal, however, goes further by advocating periodic assessments rather than waiting for misconduct complaints to arise.

Lawyers back proposal
Legal analysts believe periodic reviews would reinforce the principle that the SAN rank is a continuing privilege rather than a permanent entitlement.

Most importantly, proponents argue that the reform would align with the original philosophy of the rank itself.

A lawyer may retain exceptional advocacy skills, but if his conduct repeatedly undermines the administration of justice, many believe he falls short of what the silk is intended to represent.

Activist-lawyer Malachy Ugwummadu believes the recommendation reflects accumulated judicial frustration.

According to him, Supreme Court justices would not make such observations unless they had detected troubling patterns in the conduct of some senior advocates.

He said: “The SAN rank epitomises the highest level of legal practice.

“When the justices feel anguished and disappointed enough to document these concerns in a judgment, then there is cause for concern.”

Ugwummadu noted that courts have often imposed costs on lawyers but argued that misconduct by SANs naturally attracts greater scrutiny because they are expected to lead by example.

For him, the larger issue is public confidence.

He said: “Our notion of justice is founded on confidence. When the ordinary person loses confidence in what goes on in the judiciary, that is the end of justice philosophically.”

Similarly, lawyer Dr Frank Tersien supports the proposal.

He said: “For me, all necessary measures should be adopted to maintain discipline within the legal profession, particularly among those at the top, to whom younger lawyers look for direction and inspiration.”

Senior Advocate Yemi Candide-Johnson has spoken publicly about growing public distrust of senior lawyers.

He recalled at an NBA Lagos event of being asked by a layman whether SANs receive “special training in deception, delay and diversion.”

Though rhetorical, the question reflected a perception increasingly encountered among members of the public.

Candide-Johnson argued that discipline must begin with senior lawyers because they shape public perceptions of the profession.

He lamented that misconduct involving influential lawyers often goes unpunished, creating what he described as “a habit of no consequence.”

According to him, public confidence has been weakened by the growing belief that senior lawyers have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

He recounted an international arbitration where a respected foreign arbitrator openly questioned the credibility of a well-known Nigerian SAN.

“It is a thing of great shame to claim leadership and a fancy gown, only to drag and debase that gown in the mud of corruption and injustice,” he said.

He added: “If senior lawyers are not committed to the efficiency and integrity of the administration of justice, it will collapse.”

Legal practitioner Jonathan Iyieke questioned how the SANs censured by Justice Abiru accepted the brief despite Ogidan’s prior admission and refund.

Citing Rule 44 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Iyieke argued that although lawyers should not reject briefs merely because they are unpopular, they may decline representation where a client seeks to pursue an illegal or fraudulent objective.

“Having tactfully pleaded guilty and entered a plea bargain, it is prevarication of justice for Ogidan to somersault and seek another bite at a matter he had concluded with the EFCC,” he said.

Iyieke proposed reforms that would allow the EFCC to revive criminal proceedings where a defendant attempts to undermine a plea bargain and urged stronger disciplinary measures against lawyers who facilitate such litigation.

Lawyer Toyin Ndidi-Taiwo argues that the debate must not lose sight of a foundational principle of legal practice.

She said: “The basic principle of the rule of law is that every litigant is entitled to legal representation, regardless of how weak, unpopular or morally questionable his case may appear.”

She stressed that lawyers are generally entitled, and often obliged, to represent clients whose causes may be unpopular.

The issue, she argued, is whether SANs knowingly pursue proceedings that amount to abuse of court process.

“This is certainly not the first time a court has rebuked counsel,” she noted, recalling warnings by the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa against lawyers becoming “hired guns” rather than ministers in the temple of justice.

While acknowledging that courts may criticise meritless litigation, she cautioned against confusing judicial observations with binding law.

She said: “Given that the rank of SAN is a privilege and not a birthright, the court’s suggestion may be seen as an attempt to discourage abuse of court processes, frivolous applications, forum shopping and deliberate delay tactics.

“However, such comments do not in themselves alter the constitutional or statutory framework governing the rank.”

Source: The Nation News