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.
A challenge was made to the FHRC report's claims by a 2006 election observer who claimed Dr. David Neilson (a key member of the commission) did not understand Fiji's electoral process. David Arms, an Electoral Commission member during Bainimarama's administration, criticized the report as weak and suggested there was "too much 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 concluded that the 2006 election had been 'manipulated' based on evidence from public hearings without independent verification.