Constitutional lawyer Jirgba Terfa Jirgba has urged political observers to distinguish the Federal High Court, Jos judgment involving Dr. Tongshinen Gozhak and Mr. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi from the ongoing legal battle over Senator Gabriel Torwua Suswam’s emergence as the APC senatorial candidate for Benue North-East.
Jirgba said the Jos court’s decision to strike out Gozhak’s suit did not amount to a judicial determination of all disputes arising from APC primary elections, stressing that the case was struck out over the legal foundation upon which it was instituted.
According to Jirgba, the Gozhak suit was brought under the Electoral Act 2022, which had been repealed and replaced by the Electoral Act 2026. The court consequently declined jurisdiction without determining the substantive merits of the primary election dispute.
He said this was materially different from Suswam’s case before the Federal High Court in Abuja, which, according to the originating processes filed in the matter, is founded on the Electoral Act 2026.
Jirgba noted that the Abuja case specifically raises questions surrounding the APC Benue North-East senatorial primary of May 18, 2026, including votes recorded at the primary, subsequent party communications and the recognition and submission of the candidate.
He therefore cautioned against using the Jos judgment to draw conclusions about Suswam’s case, saying each suit must be determined on the basis of its pleadings, cause of action, reliefs sought, applicable law and evidence.
The lawyer also stressed that the Jos court did not declare Gozhak the winner or finally determine all controversies surrounding the Pankshin/Kanke/Kanam primary. He said the decision was fundamentally based on the competence and jurisdictional foundation of the action.
The development comes amid continuing legal scrutiny of the APC’s candidate-selection process in Benue, with Suswam having been returned as winner of the party’s North-East senatorial primary. Jirgba said the Abuja case should therefore be allowed to stand on its own legal merits.
