Sending student activist Jatupat Bunpattararaksa, aka "Pai Dao Din", to a military court, immediately after he was bailed out in a case involving the Public Referendum Act, will do the political atmosphere in the country no good at all.
Mr Jatupat's second detention is related to his campaign on June 24 to mark the transformation of Thailand from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy, along with his participation in a political discussion on the Referendum Act in Khon Kaen a week ahead of voting day.
Besides, the use of the military court in such a case is unacceptable.
Instead of following the letter of the law, it is time the military regime finds a way to better handle cases related to the referendum and freedom of expression.
Now that the draft charter has gained public approval and society is moving forward under the political roadmap, the regime must open up to different voices and incorporate them into the new laws that will be enacted under the new constitution.
The successful handling of these cases will go a long way toward fostering an atmosphere of openness necessary for a general election which is the next step in the military regime's roadmap.
Previously, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha appeared nonchalant when he brushed off a call by the international rights organisation Human Rights Watch for the government to free Mr Jatupat immediately.
The plight of the hunger striker did not warrant his attention, the premier, said while insisting that the law must be respected and justice allowed to run its course.
With such a stance, state mechanisms will have to strictly enforce the law which could turn out to be a political boomerang given the rising need for freedom of expression in the wake of the referendum.
Mr Jatupat, 25, was initially arrested on Aug 6, a day before the public referendum on the draft charter was held, after distributing documents containing information why the draft charter should be rejected at a market in Chaiyaphum province.
Authorities accused the student activist of violating the Public Referendum Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, as well as obstructing justice by refusing to provide fingerprints while in custody.
Whether Mr Jatupat went over the top in his actions is a moot point, but what has been brought into focus is the similar plight of more than 100 people who were arrested for either criticising the draft charter, announcing publicly that they would vote to reject it, or campaigning for other people to vote against it.
Gen Prayut is correct that the law must be respected but the problem with the Public Referendum Act is that it seems to leave ample room for the authorities to decide, to the point it might be applied arbitrarily.
The law allowed people to air their opinions about the draft charter freely but banned them from publicising anything that was "untrue" in an aggressive, coercive, violent or threatening manner.
It is questionable whether distributing documents against the draft charter in a public place in a peaceful manner, as in the case of Mr Jatupat and several other activists who were similarly arrested but released on bail, should be considered a breach of the law.
The plain truth is people should not be prosecuted for disagreeing with the draft charter.
The referendum law was completely clear in its spirit of seeking to prevent violence, unfair influence over voting or fraud. It should be implemented based on those intentions alone.