The announcement of a new foreign exchange amnesty in Tunisia, aimed at reintegrating informal capital into the formal economy, is currently generating both hope and skepticism within the financial community.
While the objective of replenishing foreign currency reserves is legitimate, the bitter experience of the 2009 failure serves as a reminder that a gesture from the state alone is not enough to reassure markets.
This “original sin” continues to linger in collective memory: at the time, the initiative was met with widespread distrust, with capital holders viewing it as a disguised tax audit rather than a genuine opportunity.
Different era, different form, but the same (psychological?) obstacles to a successful amnesty. Without guarantees against administrative harassment and faced with the obligation to reinvest funds into a punitive system, operators preferred to remain in the shadows rather than enter a constraining legal framework.
A tacit admission of legislative inconsistency?
Recent parliamentary developments have further confirmed this necessary caution.
On April 14, 2026, the Assembly of People’s Representatives (ARP) made a crucial decision to refer the draft law on “the regularization of foreign exchange violations” back to committee. The vote on this referral is highly significant: 54 in favor, 3 against, and 2 abstentions.
This symbolic setback follows reservations expressed by MPs who pointed to the lack of preparedness of certain protective mechanisms. To make the reform succeed this year, a comprehensive overhaul of the 1976 Foreign Exchange Code is no longer a simple accompanying measure, but an essential pillar of sovereign credibility.
Indeed, the core of the problem lies in a major temporal inconsistency. Why would an investor repatriate their assets if they know that their freedom of movement will remain constrained the very next day by an outdated regulatory framework?
The question is worth asking, as it summarizes the thinking of many Tunisians across all socio-economic groups.
The 1976 Code was designed for a fortress economy. But in the interconnected world of 2026, maintaining this text while launching an amnesty is equivalent to offering a grand entrance door to a gilded prison cell.
Thus, the new version of the Code must imperatively provide a safety valve so that regularized funds become drivers of growth rather than hostages of bureaucracy. Without a clear and liberalized reinvestment framework, the amnesty will remain a merely cosmetic measure, incapable of drying up black market flows or inspiring lasting confidence among economic operators.
Injecting much-needed legislative sincerity
This transformation requires the establishment of a new social contract based on a clear break with a logic of suspicion.
To be effective, this transition must revolve around three fundamental pillars.
First, enshrine irreversible legal security. Making the extinction of legal proceedings definitive and binding sends a strong signal of protection against any subsequent criminal or administrative reclassification.
Second, ensure structural fluidity of capital flows. An amnesty without gradual liberalization of the capital account is a dead end. Currency must be allowed to circulate to fuel productive investment.
Finally, guarantee the decriminalization of economic activity. It remains essential to replace the current punitive logic with proportionate administrative sanctions, treating operators as transparent partners who may occasionally make mistakes but should have legal means to correct them, without the Damoclean sword of an unresponsive administration or prison sanctions.
The amnesty and the reform of the Code are two sides of the same coin. Attempting one without reforming the other would condemn the country to repeat the mistakes of 2014 or 2015, and above all, the failure of 2009.
The referral to committee decided by the ARP on April 14 should be seen as an opportunity to inject this long-awaited legislative sincerity. For capital to return and be sustainably invested, lawmakers would do well to offer the vision of a country no longer afraid of its own currency.
The new Code is not just a technical text; it is the lifeline of the amnesty and a strong signal that holding foreign currency is finally seen as a driver of economic sovereignty.
Because in 2026, “foreign exchange peace” is not declared—it is legislated.
