“The Drug Situation in Mauritius is Critical”
Interview: Kunal Naik – CEO, National Agency for Drug Control
Recognizing our critical situation isn’t conceding failure; it simply highlights the heavy work ahead and our need for everyone’s support
* ‘The State should recognise that people will use drugs, whether they are legal or not, and should exercise its duty of care through health support, risk education, and harm reduction’
* ‘Drugs are not a battle we can ever declare finished; they are a problem we must manage intelligently and continuously’
Mauritius is facing an increasingly complex drug problem, with the rapid spread of cheap synthetic drugs and new psychoactive substances adding a new dimension to the challenge. At the same time, there is growing recognition that arrests and seizures alone cannot measure success. In this interview, Kunal Naik, CEO of the National Agency for Drug Control (NADC), discusses the changing drug landscape, the need for prevention, harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation alongside enforcement, and the policy choices facing Mauritius. He also explains the thinking behind the National Drug Control Masterplan 2026–2030 and why the country needs to move beyond the traditional “war on drugs” approach.
Mauritius Times: How would you assess the current drug situation in Mauritius? Official figures show large numbers of drug offences and substantial seizures every year. What do these figures tell us about the drug problem — and what do they not tell us?
Kunal Naik: I have said it before publicly, and I say it again as the CEO of the NADC: the drug situation in Mauritius is critical.
All over the world, we are witnessing an onslaught of cheap synthetic drugs and the emergence of new psychoactive substances almost on a daily basis. The World Drug Report 2025 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime mentions that, in 2024, 755 new psychoactive substances were recorded, the highest number in a single year so far. That was two years ago.
In Mauritius, according to intelligence reports, we are aware that approximately 60 psychoactive substances have been identified since 2013. Globally, responses are being formulated, strategies are being put into place and tested. Unfortunately, emerging threats and challenges currently hold the upper hand, and enforcement agencies are playing catch-up with the rise of new, more dangerous products, markets, and trafficking routes.
Acknowledging that the situation is critical is not conceding that we are failing. It simply means that we have a lot of work to do, and we will require the support of everyone.
* Are we measuring the success of the fight against drugs correctly? Should we look beyond arrests and seizures to indicators such as drug consumption, addiction, overdoses, deaths, treatment outcomes, relapse and the size of the illicit market?
Allow me to nuance the question. First of all, speaking of the measure of success in the fight against drugs, as you mention, is a very narrow approach to the issue. The UNODC itself speaks of “drug control” and not “drug eradication”.
The international community has realised that repression through enforcement alone does not work. Drug traffickers do not operate within the same legal parameters as law enforcement or within sovereign frontiers. They can often adapt faster than enforcement agencies.
The trend now is to focus on prevention and harm reduction through a continuum of care. What this means, in essence, is that the State should recognise that people will use drugs, whether they are legal or not, and should exercise its duty of care by warning citizens about the dangers of drug use, providing them with information on the risks and consequences and social and health support wherever possible to minimise the harms of drug use. It should offer medical support in the event of addiction and, finally, provide a treatment and rehabilitation route, helping the individual return to society. That is what harm reduction seeks to do, meeting an individual where he may be on the continuum of use (addiction cycle) to connect him to the continuum of care.
It is imperative to distinguish fundamentally between a drug user and a drug trafficker; only the latter is a criminal. The real measure of the fight against drugs is therefore a dashboard view of the continuum of care including, as you , key health and social statistics, alongside trafficking and drug-use statistics.
The NADC has been set up with this approach in mind, and the National Drug Control Masterplan 2026–2030 paves the way for each institution, public and private, concerned with the fight against drugs in Mauritius to develop projects and initiatives that contribute to this continuum of care.
* Regarding the proliferation of cheap synthetic drugs and new psychoactive substances (NPS), how serious is this threat compared with traditional substances like heroin and cannabis? Does it require a significant rethink of Mauritius’ drug-control strategy?
Traditionally, in Mauritius, we had cannabis, dating back to the arrival of the indentured labourers, followed by the introduction of heroin in the form of brown sugar in the 1980s, and subsequently the introduction of laboratory-created drugs — ecstasy, LSD, MDMA and so on — during the late 1990s and 2000s, essentially coinciding with the advent of the entertainment industry.
The first forms of synthetic drugs and new psychoactive substances appeared in Mauritius as early as 2012 and were subsequently listed within the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) as synthetic cannabinoids and their derivatives in 2013. Back then, people were talking about “designer drugs”, such as Black Mamba or Batdanlatet. Today, the variants are so diverse and random in composition that they aren’t branded anymore.
People have absolutely no idea what they are buying or what substances are in it. This is why we see people in a state of neurological distress on the streets. These people need immediate medical assistance, and we are currently working with law enforcement and medical services on a pathway to address this.
But coming back to your question, we are observing an alarming trend where heroin consumption is on the decline and synthetic drugs are on a sharp rise. We are also seeing poly-drug use. Previously, people addicted to opioids tended to remain within that category, and similarly for other drugs. Nowadays, we are hearing of people mixing synthetic drugs with cocaine, for example. Currently no medical service can fully anticipate the consequences of every possible combination.
This is why education is important: people need to know and understand the risks they are taking.
* How quickly can Mauritius identify a new synthetic substance once it appears on the market? Does the country have an effective early-warning system capable of keeping pace with the rapid evolution of synthetic drugs?
At the NADC, we have a Supply Reduction Division which is mandated by the NADC Act to liaise and coordinate with law enforcement agencies and the judicial services. The Forensic Science Laboratory is part of this committee. We are already in talks with the new management to identify the processes and pathways that would facilitate the quick identification of new psychoactive agents appearing in the country.
This is the crucial first step towards setting up an Early Warning System, another project we are currently working on with various partners and stakeholders, including the Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies, NGOs and the police.
I do not want to say too much at the moment, but we already have an idea of the architecture, and the major stakeholders have been contacted and are aware of what contribution is expected from them.
* Mauritius has made substantial drug seizures and thousands of arrests. But how much of the trafficking infrastructure is actually being dismantled?
The appearance of synthetic drugs has drastically changed the drug landscape in Mauritius. Drug dealers in Mauritius are no longer only simple middlemen in an import-export chain, with a financier at one end and “jockeys” at the other. That model is increasingly obsolete.
We are increasingly seeing elements of a much more sophisticated model: individuals well versed in the procurement of psychoactive agents and legal precursor chemicals including through online networks and cryptocurrency transactions, the chemical preparation of drugs, the supply chain that gets them onto the streets, and the laundering of money through legitimate business ventures.
Just imagine the picture we have set. We cannot expect law enforcement authorities to identify, investigate, arrest and prosecute an entire ecosystem without setting off alarms and seeing the whole ecosystem disappear as if it imploded without a trace.
This is why we need to invest in awareness, education, prevention and treatment, while also becoming better at identifying the organisers, financiers and facilitators of the trade. We must address the demand side as much as we invest in supply reduction.
* Would you agree that an increase in drug seizures may sometimes reflect a greater availability of drugs rather than more effective enforcement? If so, how should seizure figures be assessed alongside other indicators to provide a more accurate picture of the country’s drug situation?
Data is important and is required to drive research, from which strategies and tactics are developed. However, we need to be aware that statistics can be interpreted in different ways. While drug seizures are an interesting KPI to judge the efficiency of our supply-reduction initiatives, they are not a measure of the real situation in the country.
That is why we work with every stakeholder, from law enforcement to NGOs and peer educators who have a stronger link to the ground. The whole picture only makes sense if we look at the dashboard as a whole, not at one indicator in isolation.
* Is Mauritius doing enough in prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and aftercare? In particular, do we have reliable data on relapse rates and on how many people remain drug-free after treatment?
I would say that Mauritius is doing more today, but we are not yet doing enough. We have treatment and harm-reduction services which includes the methadone programme, NGOs providing psychosocial support and rehabilitation services, and the Drug Users Administrative Panel is creating a pathway towards rehabilitation rather than punishment for people who use drugs.
But the real weakness has been the lack of a coordinated response including a national rehabilitation and reintegration pathway, particularly after a person leaves treatment. The National Drug Control Masterplan 2026–2030 recognises this and provides for structured rehabilitation, psychosocial follow-up, family reintegration, employment support and community follow-up.
On relapse, I would be very cautious. Unfortunately, we do not yet have sufficiently reliable national longitudinal data to tell you with confidence how many people remain drug-free one, two or five years after treatment. That is precisely why monitoring and evaluation is one of the priorities of the Masterplan.
Treatment is not the end of the journey. Recovery is a continuum. To measure success properly, we must follow the person beyond the treatment centre and know whether he or she has reintegrated into society and remained in recovery.
* What are your views on how a person found in possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use should be treated? Should such a person be regarded primarily as a criminal offender, or as someone who may need medical, psychological or social support?
I believe we need to make a clear distinction between a drug user and a drug trafficker. A person caught with a small quantity for personal consumption may have broken the law, but that does not necessarily mean that the best response is to treat that person primarily as a criminal. In many cases, an underlying health or social issue needs to be addressed.
This is where the Drug Users Administrative Panel, or DUAP, comes in. The DUAP provides an alternative pathway for certain people found in possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use. Instead of going through the full criminal-justice process, the person can be assessed and, where appropriate, referred for treatment, rehabilitation and other support services.
In essence, I would describe this as a form of depenalisation focused on diversion. The offence remains an offence, but the response shifts from punishment to intervention and rehabilitation.
This also makes practical sense. If we can divert users who need medical or social assistance towards the appropriate services, we allow law enforcement and the justice system to concentrate more resources on traffickers, financiers and organised criminal networks. The objective is not to be soft on drugs. It is to respond smarter.
* We understand the NADC has been consulting stakeholders on cannabis policy. What options are currently being considered — depenalisation, decriminalisation, medical cannabis, regulated recreational use, or a combination of these? And what does the evidence tell us about the potential benefits and risks, particularly for young people?
We have been consulting stakeholders on cannabis policy, but I think we need to frame the discussion properly. The evidence does not provide a single, universally applicable answer. Different studies can identify different benefits and risks, and one important question is how that evidence applies to the particular policy model and to Mauritius.
The real question for Mauritius is: can we afford to maintain the status quo?
As I said earlier, a form of depenalisation is already in place through the Drug Users Administrative Panel. So, the reality is that we have already moved away, to some extent, from treating every person who uses drugs purely through the criminal-justice system.
The discussion now needs to be evidence-based and specific to Mauritius. We need to examine the different options — depenalisation, decriminalisation and, potentially, regulated and responsible adult use — and understand what each model would mean for public health, law enforcement, public safety and, particularly, young people.
Consulting on an option does not mean endorsing that option. My position is that we should not import a policy simply because it works somewhere else. We need to determine what Mauritius can realistically regulate, monitor and enforce. Protecting young people must remain central to whichever policy option we ultimately recommend.
* Countries such as Uruguay and Canada have introduced regulated cannabis markets, while Portugal has adopted a more health-oriented approach to personal drug possession. What lessons does the NADC draw from these experiences, and are any elements of these models applicable to Mauritius?
We cannot simply copy any model. Uruguay, Canada and Portugal provide useful lessons, but each responded to its own realities. For Mauritius, the Portuguese approach to health and diversion is particularly relevant, since our DUAP already represents a form of depenalisation. We should learn internationally but develop a Mauritian model.
* If you had to identify one major weakness in Mauritius’ current response to drugs, what would it be? And conversely, what is the one development that gives you the greatest confidence that Mauritius can turn the situation around?
If I had to identify one weakness, I would say this carefully: it is not the people, but the administrative systems we inherited, which cannot be changed at the flip of a button.
Sometimes, the machinery between an idea and its implementation is simply too slow. By the time we act, the identified issue we sought to address has already moved on. What gives me confidence is the NADC and the National Drug Control Masterplan 2026–2030, which give us the framework to break silos and act more coherently.
* Finally, what should the public expect the NADC to have achieved by the end of 2027/28 that would allow you to say: Mauritius is no longer simply fighting the drug problem — we are beginning to win the battle against it?
I would put it differently: winning was never really an option, and neither was losing. Drugs are not a battle we can ever declare finished; they are a problem we must manage intelligently and continuously — using compassion where it is needed and enforcement where it is appropriate.
By 2027/28, I want us to have a functioning continuum of prevention, early warning system, harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation, supported by solid, reliable data and coordinated institutions.
If we can intervene earlier, treat better, disrupt trafficking smarter and help more people return to productive lives, then we will know Mauritius is moving in the right direction.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 August 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
