2. The Committee understands that the Public Protector's mandate is wide and that the discretion to decide which cases falling within her jurisdiction lies solely with her. However, in the context of limited resources, the Committee is of the opinion that the Public Protector should guard against taking on cases that fall outside of her jurisdiction, such as complaints relating to court proceedings. The Public Protector may also wish to consider making use of section 6(3) of the Public Protector Act which allows her to refuse to investigate a matter reported to him or her, if 'the person ostensibly prejudiced in the matter is- (a) an officer or employee in the service of the State or is a person to whom the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation 103 of 1994), are applicable and has, in connection with such matter, not taken all reasonable steps to exhaust the remedies conferred upon him or her in terms of the said Public Service Act, 1994; or (b) prejudiced by conduct referred to in subsections (4) and (5) and has not taken all reasonable steps to exhaust his or her legal remedies in connection with such matter'. The Public Protector drew attention to the many new complaints that were received last year. The number of cases carried forward from last year to this year has also grown substantially. The Committee is sympathetic about the heavy case- load that investigators have and commends the Public Protector for making good use of trainee investigators to assist. However, in the end, the intention is that the Public Protector be able to provide the public with speedy relief. This is undermined when investigations become drawn out. The Committee can only emphasise that it believes that the present fiscal constraints require that resources are carefully employed to best effect.