Beyond its commendable objective of strengthening the country's fuel supply security, certain provisions of the text on the project for direct importation of petroleum products by the State through an authorized entity open up a broader debate. Specifically on the operating conditions of the market economy and the role the State now intends to occupy in a sector where private operators already operate. Apparently, the State wants to grant preferential treatment to the authorized entity in question. Article 9 of the draft law indeed provides for an exemption from the obligation to cover all eight petroleum districts, on the grounds that its mission responds to an objective of equitable access for the population to petroleum products. The second recognizes it a right of free and non-discriminatory access to essential infrastructure, particularly import depots and terminals operated by existing operators. For the refoundation regime, these mechanisms are justified by the pursuit of the general interest, in the name of energy sovereignty and for the need for easier and cheaper access to petroleum products, one of the foundations of the economy. But where the problem lies is that this granting of favors could compromise business freedom and impact investor confidence in the rules governing competition. This confidence requires that advantages granted to an economic actor, whether public or private, respond to clearly established motives proportionate to the objective pursued, and do not lead to creating lasting distortion between competitors. In any case, the business community will certainly observe how this new authorized entity functions and see whether the advantages granted are not made at the expense of existing entities and whether they will be limited to the performance of a public service.