Mombasa Governor Abdulswamad Sheriff Nassir has revived his campaign against muguka, saying the stimulant drives most admissions at rehabilitation and mental health facilities across the county.
His comments reignite a national debate over whether muguka should be regulated as a legal cash crop or classified as a harmful drug.
“Majority of those admitted to rehab centres in Mombasa are there because of Muguka,” Nassir said.
The governor made the remarks as he defended Mombasa County’s push to have muguka listed as a harmful drug rather than treated like a normal agricultural product. He warned that the county faces a worsening public health challenge, especially among young people, and he linked the trend to rising consumption of the stimulant.
Nassir said his position draws on evidence and accounts from rehabilitation centres and mental health facilities operating in Mombasa.
Stakeholders in the county’s addiction recovery sector say many people who seek treatment struggle not only with addiction, but also with insomnia, anxiety, depression, aggression, and other mental health complications tied to the stimulant.
The governor has consistently warned that muguka threatens young people’s well-being. In earlier remarks calling for tighter controls, he stated that it “has no medicinal value” and described it as “a serious threat to the health of young people.”
Several rehabilitation centres in Mombasa back that view. They cite data showing that more muguka users are seeking rehabilitation services, with many patients in the 15–25 age bracket.
Some centres also reported that a large share of their admissions involve individuals dealing with muguka-related addiction and related mental health challenges.
Nassir says the county government has a constitutional duty to protect public health and limit substance abuse.
He has repeatedly linked muguka to school dropouts, family breakdowns, unemployment, homelessness, and added strain on the county’s healthcare system.
His comments also come as the national debate over muguka continues, with leaders from production regions defending it as a legitimate source of income, while leaders from the Coast argue that its social and health effects outweigh the economic gains.
