The office of the ombudsman is much misunderstood. Is it better viewed as part of the executive or the judiciary? Is it a fragile institution, unprotected with security of tenure? Is it a ‘toothless tiger’? The one constant in the face of such inquiries is that ombudsmen don’t seem to care, or at least carry on with great effectiveness as though they don’t. I would argue in any case that such queries are beside the point and that the one thing that must be understood about the ombudsman is that it is an office with a particular purpose.