The group, led by Jon Ungpakorn, director of Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), petitioned the Ombudsmen to consider whether Article 61 contradicts the interim constitution, which guarantees people’s rights and freedom of expression.

The controversial article prohibits the dissemination of false, rude or intimidating messages that are intended to influence voters. The crime is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in jail and a Bt200,000 fine.

The Ombudsman is postponing a decision until the Election Commission (EC), which wrote the law, provides key facts in the case.

If the article is found to contradict the interim charter, it would be rendered unenforceable, although the rest of the referendum bill would still be valid.

Rakkecha said yesterday the agency would render a decision next Wednesday on whether the petition should be forwarded to the Constitutional Court for further examination.

If the EC has not submitted relevant facts by then, the Ombudsman will proceed with the available evidence, the secretary-general said.

Rakkecha added that his agency had already studied relevant laws.

“We have taken referendum laws from 2007, 2009 and the current one into consideration. We found that the previous versions stipulated nothing like Article 61(2).”

Ombudsman researchers also looked up the words “aggressive”, “rude”, “provoking” and “intimidating” in the dictionary because they did not appear in previous referendum laws, he said, adding that the agency had already reached a preliminary judgement. He did not specify the nature of that judgement.

However, the Ombudsman will wait for the EC to provide more facts in the case before arriving at a final conclusion, he said.