Staff correspondent:

The High Court ruled that a person sentenced to more than two years will be constitutionally ineligible for election. 
This observation was made in the verdict given by a division bench of the High Court consisting of Justice M. Nazrul Islam Talukder and Justice KM Hafizul Alam, rejecting the appeal of five BNP leaders convicted in the corruption case.
Earlier on November 27, 2018, he announced the summary judgment. The full 44-page verdict was published on the website of the Supreme Court on Sunday after the two judges signed it. 
In the judgment, the court said, even if the bail or sentence is suspended, he cannot participate in the election, unless his sentence is quashed by the competent court. Pending appeal means that the convicted person is not innocent. Only if the sentence is quashed by a competent court will the convict be acquitted. There is no opportunity to participate in the elections until the penalty is cancelled.
In the verdict, the conviction and sentence of five BNP leaders in a separate case of corruption was suspended. In the plenary judgment, the court said, there is no scope for suspending the sentence of the appellants to facilitate their participation in the parliamentary elections. 
The five leaders of the applicant BNP are; Wadud Bhuiyan, Md. Abdul Wahab, Md. Moshiur Rahman, A ZM Zahid Hossain and Aman Ullah Aman.
Lawyers said, ‘Anyone sentenced to two years or more in a moral turpitude case is constitutionally ineligible for election.’ 
Some of those convicted in corruption cases have filed a petition for stay of sentence pending appeal. Because if the sentence is not suspended, they will not be able to participate in the parliamentary elections. The High Court explained it in detail. The sentence will remain in place until the appeal is resolved—so the sentence is never suspended. Article 66 (2) of the Constitution states, ‘No person shall be eligible to be elected and remain a Member of Parliament, if (d) he has been convicted of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and five years after his release. Years do not pass.’ 
As regards the petitioners, the judgment states that the petitioners have been granted bail, but it cannot be said that they have been acquitted or acquitted or they have been released or they have finally been convicted and acquitted. As a result, no one can participate in the election until the ban imposed on the convicts in terms of Article 66 (2) (d) of the Constitution is stayed in the competent court. In this case, whatever is contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitution will prevail here.
The judgment directed both the parties to take necessary steps for speedy disposal of the criminal appeal.