Unauthorised Expenditure
Unauthorised Expenditure — Overspending of Votes
Departments and votes that exceeded their appropriated budget, creating unauthorised expenditure.
Why overspending of votes is unauthorised
Spending beyond an appropriated vote breaches the appropriation that Parliament or council approved, and the PFMA and MFMA classify the overspend as unauthorised expenditure that must be disclosed and dealt with. Appropriation is the bedrock of the constitutional power of the purse, so an overspent vote is not a mere variance but a breach of the budget mandate. AuditPro Core monitors actuals against each vote's approved and adjusted appropriation in-year, so an emerging overspend is flagged while it can still be corrected through a virement or adjustments budget rather than disclosed after the fact.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Votes overspent
27
▲ 4 vs prior year
Total overspend
R5.4 bn
Largest single overspend
R1.1 bn
Within 2% tolerance
61%
of votes
Top overspent votes (R m)
Overspend detail
| Vote | Budget (R m) | Actual (R m) | Over % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 48200 | 49320 | 2.3 |
| Education | 51000 | 51840 | 1.6 |
| Public Works | 12400 | 13010 | 4.9 |
| Human Settlements | 9800 | 10230 | 4.4 |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Appropriation as a ceiling
A vote is a legal spending ceiling, not a target, and exceeding it is unlawful even if the spending was on legitimate services. The breach is of the authority to spend, independent of the merit of the expenditure.
Main versus adjustments budget
The lawful ceiling is the adjusted appropriation after any in-year adjustments budget, not the original. Measuring against the wrong baseline either hides or overstates the overspend.
In-year correction window
Most overspends become unauthorised only because they were not corrected through virement or an adjustments budget in time. Early visibility converts a future finding into a routine budget adjustment.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Vote-level monitoring: actuals are tracked against each vote's approved and adjusted ceiling continuously, not at year-end.
- Projection alerts: run-rate projections flag votes trending toward an overspend while correction is still possible.
- Adjustment traceability: the system holds the audit trail linking actuals to the correct adjusted appropriation baseline.
- Audit-ready disclosure: confirmed overspends export into the unauthorised expenditure note with supporting vote detail.
Key Takeaways
- A vote is a legal ceiling, so overspending is unlawful regardless of spend merit.
- Measure against the adjusted appropriation, not the original budget.
- Most overspends could have been corrected in-year through virement or adjustments.
- Run-rate projections give the early warning that prevents the finding.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.