TUNIS — Every Tunisian bank must now open a dedicated account on its books and fund it each year with at least 8 percent of its net profit, to be lent out at zero interest, with no fees and no collateral of any kind. That is the effect of decree 2026-148, signed on 23 July by President Kaïs Saïed, Prime Minister Sara Zaafrani Zenzeri and Finance Minister Mechket Slama Khaldi, and now working its way through a banking sector that has spent the past week trying to work out what it means.

The decree is the implementing text for article 412 ter of the Commercial Code, introduced by law 2024-41 of 2 August 2024. The obligation itself is two years old; what was missing until now was the operating manual.

What the text says

Four categories of borrower qualify: individuals financing personal or consumption needs, holders of small projects with investment up to 150,000 dinars, small and medium enterprises with investment between 150,000 dinars and 15 million, and the community companies created under the 2022 social-economy framework.

The ceilings are graduated: 5,000 dinars for an individual, 10,000 for a small project holder, 25,000 for an SME or a community company. Loans carry no interest, may include a six-month grace period, and no guarantee — real or personal — may be demanded.

The procedural obligations fall on the bank, not the borrower. It must rule within ten working days, give reasons for any refusal, charge no arrangement fee, and refuse a new loan until the previous one is repaid in full. At least half the envelope must go to small economic enterprises and community companies. The account is to be funded within fifteen days of the general meeting that allocates profits, and the credits must be exhausted within the year. Statutory auditors certify compliance in an annual report sent within three months to the finance ministry and the central bank, on top of quarterly reporting to the ministry and monthly reporting to the central bank, broken down by governorate and by activity.

Where the analysts say it breaks

African Manager, which published the most detailed reading of the text, identifies three problems and estimates the annual levy at between 100 and 126 million dinars.

The first is a conflict with the parent law. Law 2024-41 refers to short-term honour microfinancing not exceeding two years; the decree sets a longer maximum term. A regulation cannot normally extend the scope of the legislative provision it implements, which exposes that article to a legality challenge before the administrative court.

The second is timing. Article 12 ties application to the allocation of 2025 profits — an allocation that has already happened. The 2025 accounts were closed in the first quarter of 2026 and approved by general meetings held mostly between April and June; dividends have been voted and, for nearly all banks, already paid. The 8 percent would therefore bite into a profit already distributed.

The third is the one with the clearest economic cost. The decree creates an obligation to lend but does not build the legal regime for the claim that results. No collateral is permitted, and no article organises recovery, recourse, or any substitute security. The only discipline is the ban on a second loan before the first is repaid. The sanctions in article 412 quater target the bank that fails to comply — never the borrower who fails to repay.

The accounting treatment is not settled either. A banker quoted anonymously by African Manager said the standards committee of the Order of Chartered Accountants has not yet ruled on whether the operation is an appropriation of profit or a financing commitment, and that until it does, the impact on the 2025 accounts cannot be sized.

The argument on the other side

The pressure behind the text is not hidden. African Manager notes that bankers have been publicly urged by the authorities to stop treating profitability as their sole objective, and the charge the decree answers is that Tunisian banks crowd out small borrowers by preferring sovereign paper and large corporate risk. Advocates of the measure argue that a mandatory quota is the only instrument that has ever moved credit toward borrowers with no collateral to pledge.

What could still be fixed

The alternatives raised in the debate are on the record. Some in the profession argued for a mutualised fund rather than a direct lending obligation — pooling the 8 percent across the sector so that losses are shared and a single recovery mechanism can be built, instead of leaving each bank to carry unsecured claims on its own balance sheet. The decree chose direct lending.

Short of that, three fixes would not require touching the principle: aligning the maximum term with the two-year cap in the 2024 law, moving the first application to the 2026 financial year so the levy lands on a profit not yet distributed, and adding a recovery procedure so that a defaulting borrower faces something. The finance ministry and central bank will receive granular data from the first quarter of reporting. Whether the 8 percent turns into money actually disbursed, or joins the list of legal obligations that banking practice quietly neutralises, will be visible in that data before it is visible anywhere else.