This study exposes a quiet but devastating drain on public resources across Africa and the Middle East. It shows how investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) is not some abstract legal process, but a system that pulls money straight out of public budgets. Money that should fund hospitals, schools, and workers’ wages are redirected to compensate private investors. These payments are not debated in parliament or approved by citizens. They arrive as sudden obligations, forcing governments to make hard choices resulting in job cuts, freezing of wages, or borrowing more and passing the burden on to the future.

Across countries like Egypt and Libya, the impact is severe and often hidden. Massive arbitration awards or legal costs are rarely recorded clearly in public accounts, making it difficult for workers and citizens to see where their money is going. But the effects are visible. Health systems struggle with shortages, wages fail to keep up with inflation, and public services are stretched thin. In Libya, even without clear reporting, the signs are there; delayed salaries, underfunded hospitals, and shrinking support for vulnerable communities. What is presented as fiscal pressure is, in reality, a shift of public wealth toward private claims.

Even in countries like Kenya, where the state has successfully defended cases, the cost is still carried by the public. Legal defence alone consumes millions, yet these expenses are buried within broader budgets, out of public view. When money is recovered after a win, it is not clearly tracked or redirected to support services or workers. Mauritius shows a similar pattern: even smaller arbitration awards can swallow funds that would otherwise go to housing, education, or community services. Whether a country wins or loses, the system ensures that public resources are always at stake.

The report points to a clear alternative. The African Continental Free Trade Area’s Investment Protocol offers a different path, one that limits investor privilege, restores the right of governments to regulate in the public interest, and removes the ability of corporations to sue states directly. For trade unions, this is not just a legal issue. It is about defending public money, protecting workers, and ensuring that development serves people, not profit. The message is simple: public funds must stay in public services, not be drained away through closed-door arbitration.