Expenditure
Irregular Expenditure Confirmation Status
Tracking of irregular expenditure between confirmed, under-investigation and condoned categories after AGSA testing.
Why confirmation status matters
Irregular expenditure is spending incurred in contravention of legislation such as the MFMA, PFMA or supply-chain regulations, and its mere disclosure does not resolve it. The real accountability question is what happens next: is the amount confirmed, still under investigation, or formally condoned by the relevant authority? AuditPro Core tracks each rand through these states after AGSA testing so that a growing disclosure note does not quietly mask a stalled remediation process.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Closing balance
R 9.8 bn
▲ R 1.2 bn
Under investigation
R 4.1 bn
Condoned
R 1.6 bn
Recovered
R 240 m
2.4% of balance
Irregular expenditure by confirmation status
Confirmation status by sphere
| Sphere | Confirmed | Investigating | Recovered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipalities | R 3.9 bn | R 2.4 bn | R 80 m |
| Provincial depts | R 1.4 bn | R 1.1 bn | R 90 m |
| SOEs | R 0.8 bn | R 0.6 bn | R 70 m |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
What makes expenditure irregular
It is expenditure incurred in contravention of, or not in accordance with, a requirement of applicable legislation. The funds may have bought legitimate goods, but the process breached a prescribed rule.
The three resolution states
Confirmed means the contravention is accepted and quantified; under-investigation means the cause and responsibility are still being determined; condoned means the relevant authority has formally permitted the breach after assessing it.
Condonation is not write-off
Condonation relieves the entity of pursuing recovery only where no loss occurred and the breach was procedural. It does not erase the obligation to identify whether anyone is liable for loss or unauthorised gain.
The role of the MPAC and accounting officer
Municipal Public Accounts Committees and accounting officers must investigate irregular expenditure and recommend recovery, condonation or write-off. A large under-investigation backlog signals a breakdown in this consequence-management chain.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Status reconciliation: opening balances, current-year additions and resolutions are reconciled so the closing irregular-expenditure register always ties back to the disclosure note.
- Exception workflow: amounts stuck in under-investigation beyond a set period are escalated to the accounting officer and oversight committee.
- Traceability to source: each entry links to the underlying transaction, the contravened provision and the investigation file.
- Audit-ready export: the register exports in the format expected by the audit committee and AGSA for confirmation testing.
Key Takeaways
- Disclosure alone is not resolution; the status of each amount is what counts.
- Condonation addresses procedure, not necessarily loss or liability.
- A swelling under-investigation balance points to weak consequence management.
- The register must always reconcile to the AFS disclosure note.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.