SAN Rank: NLS renews demand for publication of candidates’ scores, sparks transparency debate

The Nigerian Law Society (NLS) has renewed calls for greater transparency in the conferment of the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urging the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) to publish the assessment scores of shortlisted applicants.

The demand, made by the NLS Executive Director, Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, comes against the background of previous agitation by lawyers and other stakeholders for greater openness in the selection process, particularly the publication of candidates’ names to enable public scrutiny.

While the LPPC has responded to earlier demands for the disclosure of shortlisted candidates by routinely publishing their names and inviting public comments on their integrity, reputation and professional competence, it has consistently withheld their individual assessment scores.

The latest intervention by the NLS has consequently reopened the debate over whether the existing level of disclosure is sufficient to guarantee public confidence in the selection process or whether the publication of individual scores would further strengthen accountability.

In its statement, the NLS specifically urged the committee to publish the scores of candidates who make the longlist for the 2027 conferment exercise, arguing that the practice would enable the legal profession and the wider public to assess the basis upon which candidates are considered for the coveted distinction.

It also urged the LPPC to adopt aspects of the transparency framework used in the selection of King’s Counsel (KC) in England and Wales, regarded as the British equivalent of the SAN rank.

According to the society, the British selection process is administered by King’s Counsel Appointments through an independent Selection Panel comprising legal and lay members.

The panel examines candidates’ applications, case records and assessors’ feedback before inviting qualified applicants for interviews.

The NLS maintained that adopting a comparable approach would promote confidence in the integrity of the SAN selection exercise.

From demands for shortlist publication to scores

The demand for the publication of SAN candidates’ names has been a recurring issue in the legal profession, with concerns about the need to open the selection process to public scrutiny.

Over the years, the LPPC has institutionalised the publication of shortlisted applicants before the final conferment of the rank.

In July 2024, for instance, the committee published a list of 98 applicants, comprising 87 advocates and 11 legal academics, and invited members of the public to comment on their integrity, reputation and competence.

The committee, however, clarified that inclusion on the list did not automatically translate into a successful application.

The practice continued in subsequent years. In June 2025, the committee published a list of 72 shortlisted applicants, while in June 2026, it announced 89 candidates comprising 77 advocates and 12 academics who had scaled the prescribed stages of the selection exercise.

The 2026 publication was accompanied by an invitation to members of the public to submit complaints or adverse representations against any of the candidates, provided such complaints were supported by verifying affidavits sworn before a Superior Court of Record or a notary public.

The LPPC also required the complaints to be submitted in 20 copies within the stipulated period.

The committee subsequently approved 68 candidates for the SAN rank at its 174th plenary session held on July 23, 2026, following further interviews, consideration of petitions and responses from affected candidates.

The eventual list comprised 67 advocates and one academic, Professor Nnamdi Onyeka Obiaraeri.

The difference between the 89 candidates initially shortlisted and the 68 eventually approved illustrates that publication of the shortlist is only one stage in a multi-layered selection process.

However, while the publication of names has become an established feature of the exercise, the disclosure of individual scores remains outside the committee’s existing practice.

Why the scores remain undisclosed

The question of publishing assessment scores raises a delicate balance between public accountability and the confidentiality requirements governing the selection process.

Under the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the committee exercises control over the appointment process and is required to preserve the dignity and prestige of the rank.

Paragraph 4 of the Guidelines specifically provides that information supplied by candidates, as well as views and opinions expressed to the committee by persons consulted, shall be treated confidentially.

The provisions also contemplate confidential references from superior court judges and other persons as part of the committee’s assessment of candidates.

This confidentiality framework provides an important consideration in the debate over the publication of assessment records, particularly where such disclosure could expose confidential references or opinions supplied by judges and other professional assessors.

Nevertheless, the provision does not expressly prohibit the publication of numerical scores or an appropriately prepared assessment summary that excludes confidential references and sensitive personal information.

The committee has not publicly provided a detailed explanation specifically addressing why individual scores are not disclosed.

The distinction is important because transparency advocates argue that the publication of candidates’ scores need not necessarily involve the disclosure of confidential assessments or the identities of referees.

Arguments for and against publication

Those advocating publication of scores argue that the SAN rank is one of the highest professional distinctions in Nigeria’s legal system and that the process of selecting its recipients should be open enough to withstand public scrutiny.

According to this position, disclosing the scores would enable unsuccessful applicants, members of the Bar and the public to understand how candidates performed against the prescribed criteria.

It could also discourage allegations of favouritism, undue influence or arbitrary selection, while strengthening confidence in the committee’s decisions.

The NLS has particularly relied on the British KC selection model to support its position, arguing that a merit-based appointment process should be accompanied by sufficient transparency to demonstrate that recommendations are founded on objective professional standards.

On the other hand, considerations against unrestricted disclosure centre on the confidentiality of references, the privacy of applicants and the need to protect the integrity of the assessment process.

The publication of raw scores without adequate explanation of the different assessment stages could also produce misleading comparisons between candidates, particularly where the evaluation involves professional competence, quality of advocacy, academic contributions, integrity, chambers inspection and oral interviews.

There is also the concern that public disclosure of individual assessments could expose referees to pressure or discourage candid professional feedback, thereby weakening an important component of the selection exercise.

These considerations do not necessarily foreclose the publication of scores but raise questions about the appropriate form and extent of disclosure.

A possible middle ground would be for the LPPC to publish candidates’ numerical scores or assessment bands without disclosing confidential references, personal information or the identities of assessors.

Such an arrangement could preserve the confidentiality provisions while providing the public with a clearer understanding of the basis for the committee’s recommendations.

The wider controversy over the SAN criteria

The latest demand also comes amid an existing disagreement between the NLS and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), as well as the LPPC, over the eligibility criteria for the SAN rank and the recognition of lawyers whose professional contributions are predominantly outside courtroom litigation.

The NLS, which comprises largely non-litigation practitioners, has argued that the existing framework does not adequately accommodate the contributions of lawyers engaged in legislative drafting, policy development, legal advisory services and other specialised areas of legal practice.

Through the Association of Legislative and Advocacy Drafting Practitioners (ALDRAP), the society has promoted the introduction of the Senior Counsel of Nigeria (SCN), popularly referred to as Blue Silks, as an alternative professional distinction for non-litigation lawyers.

The initiative has, however, attracted opposition from the NBA, LPPC and other stakeholders, with the disagreement resulting in pending legal proceedings.

The NLS has maintained that the SCN initiative derives its legitimacy from the constitutional freedom of association and the relevant provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, rather than from the statutory framework establishing the SAN rank.

It has also cited a January 27, 2026 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar, as providing further legal support for its position.

The latest demand for the publication of SAN candidates’ scores therefore adds another dimension to the wider debate about professional recognition, fairness, inclusiveness and institutional accountability within the Nigerian legal profession.

Meanwhile, the LPPC has opened applications for the 2027 SAN conferment exercise, fixing a non-refundable processing fee of N5 million for private practitioners and N2.5 million for government-employed lawyers.

The online application portal opened on November 1, 2026, and is scheduled to close on January 31, 2027.

The applications are being processed under Section 5(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act and the relevant provisions of the 2022 Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

As the next selection exercise begins, the question of whether the LPPC should extend its existing disclosure policy to include candidates’ scores is likely to remain an important test of its commitment to transparency, fairness and public confidence in the conferment of the prestigious rank.