A massive but diffuse target audience: how many peoplebusinessesbusinesspeople?

Beyond the apparent diversity of recent legal cases, one constant stands out: businesspeople have become prime targets in an authoritarian reshaping of the political and economic landscape. Far from being merely an intensification of the fight against corruption, these prosecutions reveal a deeper strategy: governing through uncertainty, disciplining through fear, and reshaping power dynamics through the judicial system.

A dramatic legal saga: punishing, striking, deterring

Since 2021, legal action against business leaders has intensified. Arrests, prolonged detentions, harsh sentences, and very high fines have followed one after another.

The so-called “Orange” case, which went to trial in March 2026, provides a striking example of this: severe sentences, financial penalties that bear no obvious relation to the amounts involved, and criminal liability applied selectively in a decision that was, after all, a collective one.

This type of case highlights three trends:

• the criminalization of political or economic decisions,

• the selection of defendants,

• and penalties so severe that they go beyond the principle of restitution and enter the realm of deterrence—or even extortion 

The Expansion of Suspicion: Toward Widespread Legal Uncertainty

No official overall figures are available. But the evidence points in one direction:
• a significant number of businessmen have been directly prosecuted or convicted since 2021,
• a much wider circle is indirectly affected by investigations, asset freezes, or various restrictions,
• and widely circulated informal lists are spreading numerous names in the public sphere, amid suspicion, legal proceedings, and rumors.

Beyond the numbers, a certain atmosphere is taking hold: one of constant uncertainty, where the line between sound management, error, and misconduct becomes blurred.

In this context, businesses are adopting a cautious approach. Investment is slowing down, projects are being postponed, and decisions are being made with hesitation.

Gradually, fear is replacing initiative. The economy isn’t grinding to a sudden halt, but it is losing momentum. It is operating under constraints, in an environment where the risks are no longer merely economic, but also legal.

The risky and highly uncertain venture of so-called community-based companies

At the same time, since 2022, the government has been promoting “so-called community-based enterprises” as an economic alternative rooted in a “bottom-up” approach to economic renewal. Presented as collective structures designed to harness local resources, create jobs, and reduce regional inequalities, they also aim to bypass traditional economic channels and established players.

In reality, however, these structures rely heavily on public resources—direct or indirect funding, support from the banking system, administrative assistance, and tax breaks—at a time when the government’s capacity is already severely constrained.

Their implementation quickly reveals structural limitations: a lack of sound business models, insufficient technical support, and difficulty accessing markets. As a result, few projects are truly operational, the economic benefits remain limited, and the impact on employment remains marginal.

Without results, the resources mobilized do not generate value. On the contrary, they place a burden on an economic system already in crisis.

A reversal of economic logic

A paradox becomes clear:

• existing economic actors are weakened, and in some cases excluded;

• Inefficient public programs consume significant resources.

This imbalance undermines both wealth creation and financial stability.

This dual movement reflects a power dynamic.

By creating uncertainty, the government curtails the autonomy of economic actors. By promoting structures that are dependent on the state, it redefines the balance of power.

Justice thus becomes a regulatory tool, going beyond its primary function.

Fundamental principles that have been distorted, leading to a double dead end

The fight against corruption is necessary. But it must adhere to certain fundamental principles: legality, the presumption of innocence, proportionality of penalties, and the right to a fair trial.

However, several recent cases raise questions. When these principles are undermined, the justice system loses its protective function and becomes a tool.

Tunisia is currently facing two challenging trends:

• judicial repression that instills fear without restoring trust;

• an alternative economic model that consumes resources without producing results.

In the meantime, the economy has been weakened, public finances are under pressure, and the rule of law is being undermined.

One question remains: Is the fight against corruption aimed at delivering justice—or at redefining who has the right to exist economically?