African FDI fell 26% in 2025. What the headline figure shows
Two editions, two headlines, one $35bn transaction behind both. What the underlying number is, and what the quiet revision from $97bn to $94bn should tell you.
7 min read FDI · Egypt · Capital flows
In 2025 UNCTAD reported that foreign direct investment into Africa had reached $97bn, an increase of 75% on the year before. The figure went into almost every presentation about the continent. The underlying composition of the figure received less attention.
Most of that rise was one transaction: Egypt’s Ras El-Hekma development, a $35bn commitment from Abu Dhabi’s ADQ, landing in a single year and a single country. Strip it out and inflows grew by roughly 12%.
US$ billion
The 75% rise was measured against a 2024 figure since revised down, which included a single $35bn transaction. The 2025 decline largely reflects the absence of that transaction from the base.
UNCTAD World Investment Report, 2025 and 2026 editions
A year later, both halves of that came due
The 2026 edition reports $70bn for 2025, and it revised 2024 down from $97bn to $94bn. So the headline is a 26% fall, and it is being reported as one.
The 26% decline needs to be viewed in the context of the 2024 base, which included a single $35bn transaction. The comparison therefore measures the absence of that one transaction rather than a change in underlying appetite. UNCTAD says as much: 2025 was still the third-highest level since 1990 and roughly a third above the continent’s long-run average. Global FDI rose 6% to $1.6tn over the same period, so Africa did underperform the global trend this year, which is the real finding and is not what the headline says.
$94bn
FDI into Africa, 2024, as revised
First published as $97bn in the 2025 edition and revised to $94bn a year later. Most of the 2024 rise was a single transaction, Egypt’s $35bn Ras El-Hekma development; excluding it, inflows rose roughly 12%.
UNCTAD World Investment Report, 2026
$70bn
FDI into Africa, 2025
Down 26% on 2024, and still the third-highest level since 1990, roughly a third above the continent’s long-run average. Global FDI rose 6% to $1.6tn over the same period.
UNCTAD World Investment Report, 2026
The revision
The 2024 figure was subsequently revised from $97bn to $94bn between one edition and the next. The revised $94bn figure should be used when comparing 2024 with 2025, and a forecast built on the original number carries a three-billion-dollar difference. Official statistics are restated routinely, so it is worth dating every figure and re-checking it against the current edition before it goes in front of a committee.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| FDI into Africa 2024, as first published (WIR 2025) | $97bn |
| FDI into Africa 2024, as revised (WIR 2026) | $94bn |
| Ras El-Hekma, Egypt: one transaction | $35bn |
| Underlying 2024 increase excluding that transaction | ~+12% |
| FDI into Africa 2025 (WIR 2026) | $70bn |
| Reported change 2024 to 2025 | −26% |
| Rank of 2025 among all years since 1990 | 3rd highest |
| Global FDI 2025 | $1.6tn, +6% |
Source: UNCTAD World Investment Report, 2026.
Where the money went
Egypt took $15.5bn in 2025, its fourth consecutive year as the continent’s largest recipient. Nigeria took $4bn, Morocco $3.3bn, Kenya $3.2bn and Ghana $1.9bn. The distribution is the point: a handful of markets take most of what arrives, and the same concentration shows inside the regional blocs, where 90% of COMESA inflows go to five countries (UNCTAD COMESA Investment Report, 2025).
For an allocator that is useful rather than discouraging. The map of where capital already goes is short, the infrastructure that supports foreign investment is concentrated in the same places, and a first African position has a small number of sensible starting points rather than fifty-four.
What to do with this
Use $70bn, dated 2025, from the 2026 edition. Use the 12% underlying figure when the point is a trend rather than a total. Treat any 2024 number you are shown as provisional until you have checked which edition it came from. And when a counterparty quotes either the 75% rise or the 26% fall without the Ras El-Hekma caveat, the underlying source and reporting period should be checked when using either figure.
