The Nigerian Law Society (NLS) has called on the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) to make its selection process for the conferment of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) rank more transparent by publicly disclosing candidates’ scores.
The society made the demand through its Executive Director, Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, on Tuesday, urging the committee to publish the scores of lawyers shortlisted for next year’s SAN conferment exercise.
The NLS, which comprises largely non-litigation lawyers, argued that making the scores public would promote accountability and bring the selection process in line with practices adopted in the United Kingdom for the appointment of King’s Counsel (KC).
The SAN rank is widely regarded as Nigeria’s equivalent of the KC title in the UK.
The demand comes amid longstanding concerns among non-litigation practitioners that the existing criteria for the SAN title do not adequately recognise their contributions to the legal profession.
Through the Association of Legislative and Advocacy Drafting Practitioners (ALDRAP), members of the NLS have also pushed for the introduction of the Blue Silks rank as an alternative recognition for lawyers who specialise in non-litigation practice.
However, the proposal has faced opposition from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the LPPC and other stakeholders in the country’s legal system.
The disagreement has also resulted in legal disputes involving the NLS, ALDRAP, the NBA, the LPPC and some judicial officials, including the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr Kabir Akanbi.
The current SAN application process is conducted under Section 5(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act and Paragraphs 10(1)–(4) of the 2022 Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
Although the LPPC traditionally publishes a shortlist of applicants before the final conferment of the rank, the candidates’ individual scores are not usually disclosed.
The NLS wants this practice changed, pointing to the UK’s King’s Counsel selection process as an example of how merit-based appointments can be subjected to greater public scrutiny.
Explaining the British process, the society said applications for the KC rank in England and Wales are assessed by an independent selection panel comprising legal and non-legal members.
The panel reviews application forms, case details and feedback from assessors before inviting candidates who meet the required standards for interviews.
According to the NLS, candidates are assessed against a published competency framework, without a fixed quota limiting the number of appointments.
The selection panel then submits its recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, while formal appointments are made by the King on the Lord Chancellor’s advice.
The society also defended the proposed Blue Silks rank, describing it as an adaptation of legal traditions inherited from Britain.
It explained that, alongside the KC rank for courtroom advocates, the UK has other forms of professional recognition for lawyers working outside conventional litigation, including Parliamentary Counsel, a category associated with expertise in legislative drafting and advocacy before Parliament.
The NLS further argued that the Blue Silks rank, also known as Senior Counsel of Nigeria (SCN), derives its claimed legal foundation from Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, which it says provide a basis for self-regulatory organisations to confer fellowship distinctions on their members.
It also cited a judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja on January 27, 2026, which it said provided additional legal support for the Blue Silks initiative.
The society maintained that publishing the scores of SAN candidates would strengthen confidence in the conferment process and promote fairness in recognising excellence across different areas of legal practi
