The FHRC report's claims were subsequently challenged by one of the 2006 election observers, who claimed that Dr. David Neilson (a leading member of the commission) had 'failed to understand' the mechanics of Fiji's electoral process. David Arms, who served as a member of the Electoral Commission under Bainimarama's government, described the FHRC's report as weak and claimed that there was "undue haste in its preparation" (Arms, 'A Critique of the Report of the Independent Assessment of the Electoral Process in Fiji', 31 July 2007). According to Arms, Neilson and his colleagues reached the verdict that the 2006 result had been 'rigged' mainly on the basis of evidence gleaned at public hearings, without any independent effort to verify the accuracy of the allegations.
The FHRC report's assertions were later disputed by one of the 2006 election observers, who stated that Dr. David Neilson (a key figure in the commission) had 'failed to grasp' the workings of Fiji's electoral system. David Arms, a member of the Electoral Commission during Bainimarama's administration, characterized the FHRC report as weak and claimed there was "unnecessary haste" in its creation (Arms, 'A Critique of the Report of the Independent Assessment of the Electoral Process in Fiji', 31 July 2007). According to Arms, Neilson and his colleagues concluded that the 2006 election had been 'fraudulently manipulated' primarily based on evidence gathered at public hearings without any independent verification of the allegations.