As the return of deposed prime minister and proclaimed offender Nawaz Sharif is imminent, speculation has been rife about the legal avenues the PML-N supremo could employ to keep him away from jail once he is back.

The PML-N supremo was convicted in the Avenfield and Al-Azizia references and was declared a proclaimed offender in the cases pending before accountability courts.

He was on bail in these cases when he left for the UK in an air ambulance for medical treatment in 2019. On Oct 21, he’s returning, nearly four years after he left.

Advocate Basil Nabi Malik, partner at RMA & Co, says that the PML-N supremo will be facing two primary legal challenges on his return.

“The first shall be in relation to his convictions, whereas the second shall be in relation to his lifetime disqualification from becoming a member of Parliament,” he adds.

The PML-N has said they’d go for protective bail — and recent reports suggest his legal team is following through with this strategy — but is it a viable option? And what are his other options?

Dawn.com reached out to lawyers to shed light on the different legal tactics that his legal team could make use of, given Nawaz’s rather unique circumstances: he’s a convict and an absconder.

Option 1: Protective bail

Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed of MCA Law Associates, a practising Supreme Court lawyer and legal commentator, is of the view that the ousted premier could seek protective bail from the Lahore High Court to allow him to submit himself before the Islamabad High Court in his main case.

He said: “Courts are generally liberal in allowing bail to an accused (even an absconder) if he says he only wants bail in order to submit to the ongoing trial.”

Ahmed adds that the government is bound to arrest Nawaz — given that he is a proclaimed offender — if he fails to obtain protective bail.

Barrister Mian Ali Ashfaq, a senior partner at S. M. Masud & Associates, also says the only way Nawaz could avoid jail upon his return is if he secures protective bail before his return. However, he is of the view that a protective bail isn’t possible “based on no previous precedents given his circumstances of the case”.

Advocate Basil Malik says Nawaz will have to surrender himself to the court in order to challenge such convictions on merit, and for such purpose, his legal team may consider whether obtaining protective bail is an option for him or not.

Barrister Usama Khawar Ghumman, a visiting professor at Lums Law School and practising high court lawyer says Nawaz has two legal avenues to potentially avoid immediate incarceration upon his return. “Firstly, he may opt to seek protective bail through the LHC.

“Over recent years, there has been a trend of granting protective bail to individuals of significant public importance,” he explains. “Given his status, there is a reasonable possibility that the LHC could grant him protective bail, allowing him to approach the IHC to pursue his appeal in the Al-Azizia case.”

Barrister Ghumman further says the prevailing political circumstances may play a role in the IHC’s decision, “making it likely that they may suspend his sentence and schedule the appeal for a regular hearing”.

Option 2: Transit bail

Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii, a columnist, legal commentator and senior partner at HWP Law, said it was being suggested that Nawaz would apply for and receive a transit bail — which is essentially the same as protective bail — after which he will apply for a bail-before-arrest. “And thus be able to avoid jail in the interim period before the accountability court judgments against him and overturned in appeal”.

“In my view, this is a stretch of the understanding of bail, as Nawaz is not an accused person pleading with the court that he seeks a chance to defend himself,” Jaferii said.

“He is an escaped convict. He cannot be afforded these privileges by the court and will have to go to jail unless the laws of the land do not apply to him the same way they do to other people.”

Option 3: Suspension of sentence

Barrister Ghumman highlights that another available avenue for Nawaz is to apply to the government for the suspension of his sentence under the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978.

“This application should be accompanied by valid reasons, such as medical concerns, for his inability to return to Pakistan within eight weeks as previously required by the federal government when his sentences were suspended in 2019,” he said.

Barrister Ghumman points out that the government holds the power to suspend the sentence of any convict.

“However, it is considered appropriate and customary for the federal government to first seek the opinion of the presiding judge of the accountability court that convicted Nawaz,” he says, adding that the judge’s opinion, while not obligatory or binding, serves as a significant factor in the government’s decision-making process.

He says typically, the government tends to reject applications from convicts who have violated the conditions of their release, as Nawaz has done.

“However, it remains entirely plausible that the federal government may choose to overlook his prior transgressions and provide an explanation based on medical grounds.”

Talking about whether the caretaker government would be willing to assume such a risk, which could be perceived as a naked display of partisanship and an extraordinary effort to accommodate Nawaz, Barrister Ghumman terms it a matter of “political and legal discretion”.

He says that the aforementioned legal tactics may offer Nawaz opportunities to avoid immediate incarceration upon his return to the country but “their success will depend on various factors, including the legal interpretations and the political climate at the time”.