Home Blog Page 2

Peace or Justice? Nigerians Debate Amnesty for Armed Groups Ahead of 2027 Elections

By
Mohammed Ibrahim
-
0
Former PDP interim Working Committee Chairman Senator Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi believes security issues shouldn't be politicized. Photo by Mohammed Ibrahim

Why are Nigerians divided on amnesty for armed groups? Why does this matter for Nigeria’s 2027 elections?

As Nigeria prepares for its January 2027 general elections, insecurity is once again becoming one of the country’s biggest political issues. Across communities affected by banditry, terrorism, kidnapping and other violent crimes, many Nigerians are asking an important question: Should the government negotiate with non-state armed groups and grant them amnesty in exchange for peace?

Political parties are expected to present different ideas on how to improve security during the election campaign. While some may support dialogue alongside military action, others believe those responsible for violent crimes should be prosecuted instead of receiving government incentives.

The issue has divided public opinion. Some Nigerians believe dialogue and amnesty could save lives and reduce violence. Others argue that it would reward criminals while victims continue to suffer.

One of the strongest supporters of dialogue is a renown Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmad Abubakar Gumi. He believes fighters who genuinely surrender should be given a chance to rebuild their lives.

Gumi’s meeting with armed groups to persuade them to accept peace and to end violence. Photo by Mohammed Ibrahim.

He said that there is nowhere in the world where a repentant, one who surrenders, is killed, not even prisoners of war. “Since they are repentant, it is their basic right to be rehabilitated and integrated into society,” Sheikh Gumi told Peace News Network (PNN), stressing that the question of whether they should be pardoned should not even arise at all. He insisted that amnesty is not only the way out, but also the law.

Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Mahmud Gumi.

He added, “One thing we have to understand is that when you are fighting a thousand people, and 500 decide they are going to surrender, you are reducing your work. So, we should encourage them, and that will encourage others to give up their bad ways.”

Sheikh Gumi preaching to armed men during one of his visits to a forest in the northern region to urge them to accept peace. Photo by Mohammed Ibrahim.

Supporters of amnesty argue that military operations alone have not ended years of violence. They believe negotiations could persuade some fighters to lay down their weapons, release kidnapped victims, and allow displaced families to return home. They also say peaceful communities are necessary for free and fair elections, as people are more likely to vote when they feel safe.

Some communities that have experienced violence say they simply want peace, regardless of how it is achieved. Imam Hussaini Muhammad, a community leader from Udawa village in Kaduna State, said dialogue has helped improve security in his community.

“Since the use of the kinetic approach had not ended the violence why not try the negotiation or amnesty for us we don’t care the method used as long as peace returns to our community,” he said. He added that negotiations with armed groups around the community had produced positive results, allowing many residents to return to their farms.

However, many Nigerians strongly disagree with the idea of granting amnesty. Victims, community leaders and security experts argue that people responsible for killings, kidnappings and other serious crimes should face justice.

A public Analyst Tajudeen Ajibagde said the law should apply equally to everyone. “My position is simple: Anyone who commits a crime should face the full weight of the law. There must be consequences for criminal actions,” he said. He added, “For me, there should be no amnesty for anyone who commits a serious crime and is found guilty.”

For many victims, the discussion goes beyond politics. Alheri Yahaya, a housewife from Maraban Kajuru Village, was kidnapped together with her husband and spent two months in the custody of bandits. She said the experience left her family struggling to survive. “What we, as victims, need most now is help,” she said. “We have been forced to leave our homes, and the place where we are currently staying is not suitable for us.”

She added: “Our only hope is that justice will be done for everyone. We, the victims, truly need support and assistance.”

Security expert Ishaq Usman Kasai believes peace and justice should work together rather than compete with each other. “Victims deserve justice, and the rule of law must be upheld. Lasting peace is achieved when accountability, reconciliation, and victims’ rights are balanced,” he told PNN.

Kasai warned that granting amnesty without accountability could send the wrong message. “Granting amnesty without ensuring justice may inadvertently incentivize future violence, as it could create the perception that those who take up arms can eventually escape accountability through pardon.”

Nigeria’s past experience with amnesty is also part of the debate.

The 2009 Niger Delta Amnesty Programme helped reduce attacks on oil facilities and gave many former militants access to education and vocational training. However, many analysts believe it did not solve the root causes of the conflict, and some beneficiaries later returned to criminal activities.

Researcher and civil society advocate Benjamin Yohana Maigari believes this experience should guide future decisions. “For me, I believe you do not negotiate with terrorists. You do not negotiate with them,” he said.

He also questioned why discussions often focus on rehabilitating perpetrators while victims receive little attention. “Then, after the kidnappers are released or granted amnesty, they walk freely on the streets, while the victims are left to rebuild their lives alone. The system focuses on rehabilitating the perpetrators but pays little attention to rehabilitating the victims.”

As political parties prepare for the 2027 elections, many Nigerians expect clear plans for tackling insecurity. Zubairu Shanuna, a member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), believes amnesty remains a good option. He said the Niger Delta Amnesty Programme helped reduce violence and argued that negotiations could save innocent lives if properly managed.

Others disagree. Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai consistently opposed negotiations with armed groups during his time in office from 2015-2023 then as a member of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC). He maintained that the state was at war with bandits and that “eliminating them is the only solution to put an end to their criminality in the North-West region.”

But Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi, former national interim committee chairman and senator of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), one of the opposition parties, believes security should never become a political issue. “There are certain issues that should never be politicized, whether by the government or by those outside government. Security, in particular, should not be politicised,” he said.

He added that governments should welcome useful suggestions on security while opposition parties should not take political advantage of insecurity because “security is a matter that affects everyone.”

Many ordinary Nigerians believe that if amnesty is considered, victims should not be forgotten. Haruna Nasarawa, a voter and member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), said, “In my opinion, I will only support this proposed amnesty if the government also takes steps to help the people who suffered because of the violence.”

He also urged the government to ensure that anyone granted amnesty does not return to violence.

As Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 elections, the debate over amnesty continues to raise difficult questions about peace, justice, and national security. For communities that have lived with years of violence, ending the bloodshed is an urgent priority. For victims who have lost loved ones, homes, and livelihoods, justice remains equally important.

Whether political leaders choose dialogue, military action or a combination of both, many Nigerians agree that lasting peace will require more than amnesty alone. It will also depend on good governance, justice for victims, stronger institutions and better opportunities for citizens.

Keywords: Nigerian, Nigerian, Nigerians, amnesty, militants, armed groups, conflict, peace, conflict resolution, Nigeria elections, election

Can AI Help Build Peace? African Youth Are Already Showing the Way

By
Dan Campbell
-
0
Four friends with laptops smile and take a selfie at a monument in Cotonou, Benin. Photo by Iwaria via Pexels.

How are African youth using AI to build peace? What are some of the challenges that come with using AI for peace?

Artificial intelligence often dominates headlines for its risks: misinformation, surveillance, job losses, and deepfakes. Far less attention is paid to another story unfolding across Africa. Young people are using digital technologies to detect conflict early, counter hate speech, and strengthen community resilience.

A recent policy brief by the Institute for Security Studies argues that African youth are not simply adapting to AI. They are helping shape how digital technologies are used for peacebuilding. At the same time, the report warns that outdated policies, weak digital infrastructure, and persistent inequality threaten to limit that potential.

African governments, regional organizations, and civil society are beginning to develop AI governance frameworks that will influence how these technologies are used for years to come. One of the report’s central messages is that young people should not be consulted only after these frameworks are written. They should help design them from the beginning.

That argument deserves serious attention.

The report’s greatest strength is its refusal to portray African youth as passive recipients of technology. Instead, it presents them as knowledge creators who generate information, build digital tools, and shape public conversations about conflict. This is an important shift. Discussions of youth, peace, and security often focus on participation or representation. Here, the emphasis is on expertise. Young peacebuilders are producing the data, local knowledge, and digital innovations that increasingly underpin conflict prevention efforts.

The examples illustrate this well. Kenya’s Ushahidi platform demonstrated following post-election violence from 2007 to 2008 how citizens could crowdsource reports during crises. More recent initiatives such as iVerify, piloted in Zambia in 2021, train young journalists to identify and counter false information before it spreads further. iVerify is now being used in Sierra Leone and Liberia as a Digital Public Good, where young journalists are being trained in fact-checking. Other youth-led projects combine machine learning, open-source intelligence, and community reporting to monitor elections, identify conflict risks, and challenge false narratives online.

Perhaps most importantly, the report avoids treating technology as a substitute for human relationships. Many of its strongest examples combine digital platforms with face-to-face dialogue, community organizing, local radio, and peace education. Digital tools become effective because they strengthen existing social networks rather than replace them.

The report is equally persuasive in highlighting barriers that continue to shape Africa’s digital future. Internet access remains deeply unequal across the continent, especially in rural and conflict-affected areas. Women continue to face significant obstacles to digital participation. African languages remain poorly represented in many AI systems, limiting the ability of automated tools to understand local contexts or identify harmful content accurately. AI systems trained primarily in English or other Western languages risk failing to detect harmful content in African languages. These are not simply technical shortcomings. They are questions of inclusion, legitimacy, and whose voices are heard.

The discussion of language is especially important. Peacebuilding depends on understanding local narratives and community dynamics. 

The recommendations are practical and well aligned with the evidence presented. They call for closer coordination between the African Union (AU)’s peace and technology institutions, greater investment in digital literacy and connectivity, stronger ethical oversight of AI, and formal mechanisms that allow young people to contribute directly to peace and security policymaking.

Even so, some questions remain unanswered.

The report presents a series of encouraging initiatives but offers relatively little evidence about their long-term impact. Which digital peacebuilding approaches have measurably reduced violence? Which have strengthened trust between communities? Which have struggled to move beyond successful pilot projects? As governments and donors invest more resources in AI for peacebuilding, these questions become increasingly important.

The paper also could have explored more fully the tension between AI’s promise and its potential misuse. Technologies developed for early warning or conflict monitoring may also expand state surveillance or restrict civic space if deployed without meaningful oversight. Strong governance frameworks become essential not simply because AI is powerful, but because power itself requires accountability.

These limitations, however, do not diminish the report’s broader contribution. Rather, they point toward the next generation of research that will be needed as digital peacebuilding matures across the continent.

At its heart, this policy brief offers a valuable reminder that peacebuilding is not only about technology. It is about people. AI may improve early warning systems, detect misinformation more quickly, or support better conflict analysis. Yet none of these advances will produce lasting peace unless they reflect local knowledge, community priorities, and public trust.

Across Africa, young people are already demonstrating what that future can look like. The challenge now is whether institutions will recognise them as equal partners in shaping it.

For policymakers, civil society organisations, and international partners, the message is clear: investing in digital peacebuilding means investing in the people who understand their communities best. Africa’s AI future will be strongest not when technology replaces local leadership, but when it amplifies it.

Keywords: Africa, African, youth, AI, Artificial Intelligence, peace, peacebuilding, conflict, conflict resolution

This Week in Peace #135: July 17

By
Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Central Mosque of Narrathiwat in Narrathiwat province, Thailand. Photo via Wikipedia.

This week, South Sudan’s transitional assembly renews commitment to peacebuilding. Sudan government says US peace plan conditional on Rapid Support Forces (RSF) withdrawal. Malaysia to get involved in South Thailand peace dialogue efforts.

South Sudan’s Transitional Assembly Renews Commitment to Peacebuilding

Members of South Sudan’s Transitional National Legislative Assembly have renewed their commitment to peacebuilding and reconciliation amidst the country’s conflict between the military, loyal to president Salva Kiir, and insurgents believed to be allied with the suspended vice-president Riek Machar. On July 15, Eye Radio reported that members of the assembly had signed a church-facilitated Declaration of Peace and Cessation of War (DPCW).

The DPCW offers a framework to: prevent conflict; promote peaceful dispute resolution; strengthen international cooperation; and encourage a culture of peace. The organization that developed the DPCW was a South Korean civil society organization called Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL). 

After lawmakers revealed the legal basis and implications of Resolution 29/2025, South Sudan’s parliament adopted it. This development comes after earlier engagements with the judiciary and president Salva Kiir’s endorsement of DPCW in 2024.

Sudan Government Says US Peace Plan Conditional on RSF Withdrawal

Sudan’s government says that in order for it to accept a US peace plan, the plan must include the complete withdrawal and disarmament of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) from all cities under its rule, as reported by Anadolu on July 11. 

Two senior Sudanese officials told Anadolu on condition of anonymity that the government had responded to the US by submitting a document titled Restoring Peace in Sudan. The document, they said, outlines outlines security arrangements requiring the RSF to withdraw from all cities under its control, disarm and demobilize its militants, and reintegrate eligible personnel into the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under UN supervision following a permanent ceasefire.

The document also calls for preserving the SAF as a unified national army under government authority, with all armed groups integrated into it.

The US peace plan includes a 90-day humanitarian truce to lead to negotiations on a permanent ceasefire and a civilian-led transition towards elections. It also includes establishing a UN-led mechanism to support the phased withdrawal of the RSF, particularly from North Darfur and North Kordofan.

On July 14, Sudan Tribune reported that the RSF had submitted a response to the US peace plan outlining conditions for a political settlement while rejecting withdrawal. An RSF leader told the outlet that the group’s proposal includes a package of conditions related to security arrangements, restructuring state institutions, transitional justice, and a political dialogue leading to a transitional government.

On July 13, U.S. Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs Massad Boulos warned against premature reports of a breakthrough.

Malaysia to Get Involved in South Thailand’s Peace Dialogue Efforts

Malaysia plans to get involved in South Thailand’s peace dialogue efforts. Malaysia will work closely with Thailand’s newly appointed chief of the Peace Dialogue Panel of the Royal Thai Government, Malay Mail reported on July 14. 

Malaysian Defence Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin said, “We support efforts to ensure that southern Thailand remains peaceful. With the new appointment, we hope to make the peace process a success and achieve the objectives we are striving for.”

Nordin added that Malaysia supports Thailand’s continued commitment to resolving its border issue with Cambodia bilaterally through the ‘Asean Way’, which emphasises peaceful dialogue.

Thailand’s ‘Deep South,’ which includes the provinces of Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat, as well as four districts of Songkhla province, is the center of an ongoing conflict. Muslim separatist groups, most notably the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), wish for the region to secede from the rest of Thailand. Human rights groups have criticized the Thai government’s crackdowns and heavy-handed policies in response to the insurgency.

Keywords: South Sudan, Sudan, Thailand, South Thailand, Southern Thailand, Malaysia, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, dialogue, insurgency

‘No Story, No Camera’: How Children in Colombia are Filming Peace from Below

By
Camilo Tamayo Gómez
-
0
Photo provided by the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil.

How can filmmaking help Colombian children tell their stories? How can storytelling help Colombian children and communities heal during conflict?

Belén de los Andaquíes, a small municipality in Colombia’s southern department of Caquetá, is the kind of place often described from the outside through the language of war. For decades, Caquetá was shaped by the presence of guerrilla, paramilitary and criminal armed groups, as well as forced displacement, disappearances and fear. But in one corner of the town, children and young people have been learning to look at their territory differently. Before they pick up a camera, they are asked a simple question: What story do you want to tell?

That question is at the heart of the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil, the Children’s Audiovisual School, founded by community communicator Alirio González after years of work with Radio Andaquí, a local community radio initiative that began in the 1990s. The school’s motto, ‘Sin historia no hay cámara’ (‘No story, no camera’), is more than a teaching method. It is a quiet peacebuilding practice in a region where armed actors have too often tried to impose fear as the only public narrative.

The timing matters. In February 2026, UNICEF warned that child recruitment and use by armed groups in Colombia had quadrupled over the last five years, with one child recruited or used every 20 hours according to UN-verified figures. The same warning pointed to poverty, lack of education, weak services and rural isolation as factors that leave children exposed to violence. This is the wider backdrop against which the work of community projects such as the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil should be understood: not as a romantic alternative to protection, but as one part of the social fabric that helps children imagine futures away from armed life.

The school is different from other youth journalism projects in Colombia because it did not begin as a national programme or a response campaign. It grew slowly from a local culture of communication. Radio Andaquí first provided a space where neighbours could hear each other, share local information and resist the idea that the only news worth telling was about death, armed confrontation or political polarisation. Later, the audiovisual school took that civic impulse into the hands of children. A donated camera was enough to begin. Children filmed markets, rivers, kitchens, neighbourhood conversations, animals, festivals, jokes and family memories. 

Photo provided by the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil.

The point was not to deny the violence around them, but to refuse to let violence become the only way Belén de los Andaquíes could be seen. This matters because war damages more than bodies and buildings. It damages trust. It narrows the imagination. It can make children feel that their town is only a place to leave, fear, or survive. The Escuela Audiovisual Infantil works in the opposite direction. It invites young people to observe, listen and ask questions. It turns local knowledge into something valuable. It gives public meaning to the voices of children, parents, teachers, farmers and neighbours who rarely appear in national media except as victims.

Its work has also reached Colombia’s official memory process. The project ‘Historias de adultos narradas por niños’ (‘Adult stories narrated by children’) was developed with the Colombian Truth Commission’s artistic and cultural strategy. Children from Belén de los Andaquíes and nearby rural communities received memories of colonization, armed conflict, displacement, and the struggle to build a dignified life in Caquetá, then turned them into drawings and animations. This was not conventional testimony. It was intergenerational listening: Adults entrusted memories to children, and children returned those memories to the public through art.

The school’s achievements are real. Its productions have gained national recognition, including awards for community television. Former participants have gone on to study visual arts, media and communication. Parents and teachers describe children becoming more confident, more willing to speak in public and more attached to their municipality. Every screening also becomes a small civic event: a chance for neighbours to see themselves on screen not as a problem, but as a community with humour, history and dignity.

Photo provided by the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil.

Yet the story should not be told as if cameras alone can defeat war. The school faces the same difficulties that affect many grassroots peace initiatives: unstable funding, limited equipment, dependence on voluntary labor and the constant need to reach children in rural areas where transport, internet and public services are uneven. It also has to navigate the risks of working in a territory where armed violence has not fully disappeared. Its careful focus on everyday life, memory, culture and nature is not an escape from politics; It is a way of keeping civic expression alive without exposing children or families to unnecessary danger.

That balance is one of the lessons the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil offers to peacebuilders elsewhere. Peace is not only made in negotiations between governments and armed actors, important as those may be. It is also made in ordinary civic practices: in a child asking an elder about the river; in a group of friends learning to edit a film; in a family watching its own story projected back with care; in a community deciding that it has the right to narrate itself.

In peace journalism, the challenge is not only to report violence, but to notice the people and practices that reduce its power over daily life. The Escuela Audiovisual Infantil does not present Belén de los Andaquíes as a perfect island untouched by conflict. It shows something more modest and perhaps more hopeful: even in places marked by fear, people can create spaces where children are recognised as storytellers, neighbours see each other again, and memory becomes a shared resource rather than a wound carried alone.

Photo provided by the Escuela Audiovisual Infantil.

‘No story, no camera’ sounds like a rule for making films. In Belén de los Andaquíes, it has become a lesson in peace. Before a camera records a place, a child must first discover that the place has stories worth telling. And when a community learns to see itself through those stories, it also begins to protect the possibility of a different future.

Keywords: Colombia, film, journalism, youth, media, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, video, storytelling, camera

Whose Conservation, Whose Development? The Maasai Struggle Over Land in Northern Tanzania

By
Gabriel Kanuti Ndimbo and Evaristo Haulle
-
0
The Maasai taking their livestock into the Ngorongoro Caldera for grazing, photo by Harvey Barrison via Wikipedia.

How do conservation efforts in northern Tanzania impact Maasai communities? How can conservation be done in a more peaceful way that respects Maasai land rights? What is the relationship between conservation and peace?

In northern Tanzania, the struggle over conservation land has become more than an environmental dispute. It is a question of peace, justice, identity, and survival. Our recent research article examined how the Maasai communities of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) and the Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LGCA) have been repeatedly displaced under the guise of conservation, environmental protection, and modernization. The government, through its coercive apparatuses such as the police, has repeatedly displaced Maasai communities of the NCA and LGCA, saying that the Maasai are overburdening the areas. This displacement has led to violent confrontations between Maasai residents and security forces. The article’s central message is clear: For sustainable and peaceful development, conservation should be people-centered.

The Maasai have lived in these areas for decades after being moved from what is now Serengeti National Park in 1959. At the time, they were resettled in Ngorongoro and Loliondo with the understanding that they could continue their pastoral way of life while coexisting with wildlife. Today, however, they face renewed pressure to leave. The IUCN argues that growing populations, livestock numbers, farming, and permanent settlements threaten fragile ecosystems. From this perspective, relocation is presented as necessary to protect biodiversity and tourism resources.

Yet the Maasai and many human rights advocates see the situation differently. They argue that conservation has become a tool for “green grabbing”: the taking of community land in the name of environmental protection while opening space for tourism, hunting, and investment interests. In Loliondo, the government’s proposed demarcation of 1,500 square kilometers from village land has become a major source of tension. In 2022, attempts to enforce the demarcation led to confrontations between Maasai residents and security forces, causing injuries, arrests, the death of a police officer, and a Maasai man going missing after being shot in his legs. In 2024, a government decree to delist several villages deepened fears that communities were being pushed out without genuine consent.

For development to be peaceful, the most important issue is not whether conservation matters. It does. Tanzania’s wildlife and landscapes are globally significant, and protecting them is a legitimate concern at the national and international levels. The deeper question is how conservation is done. When communities are treated as threats rather than partners, conservation becomes militarized. When social services are reduced, villages are delisted, movement is restricted, or people are pressured into relocation, “voluntary resettlement” loses its meaning. Peace cannot be built where communities feel unheard, criminalized, or separated from ancestral land.

The Maasai response challenges the idea that pastoralists are simply destroyers of nature. They present themselves as guardians of the land, people whose culture, livestock systems, medicinal knowledge, sacred sites, and seasonal movement have long been connected to the ecosystem. This does not mean every local practice is automatically sustainable, nor does it deny that population growth and land-use changes create real environmental pressures. But it does mean that solutions must be negotiated, evidence-based, and respectful of Indigenous knowledge.

Displacement also carries hidden costs. For the Maasai, land is not only an economic resource. It is tied to identity, spirituality, memory, and social reproduction. Moving people away from sacred spaces, grazing routes, medicinal plants, and ancestral landscapes weakens culture and community cohesion. It may also shift conflict elsewhere, as displaced pastoralists search for land and water in farming areas, increasing farmer-herder tensions in other regions. 

This is why green grabbing should not be treated only as a conservation or land-rights issue; it is also a peacebuilding concern. Regarding farmer-herder conflicts, for example, tensions often intensify when pastoralists are forced to move to other areas, grazing corridors are blocked, water points become contested, and farmers and herders are forced into unplanned competition over shrinking resources. In Tanzania, such pressures can deepen mistrust between pastoralists and farming communities, especially where land-use planning excludes pastoral voices. Protecting Maasai land rights, therefore, is not only about historical justice. It is also about preventing conflict from moving from one landscape to another.

A peaceful way forward requires a new conservation compact. First, the government needs to guarantee meaningful participation and free, prior, and informed consent before any relocation or land-use change. Second, conservation planning should involve key stakeholders, including Maasai elders, women, youth, pastoral experts, local government, conservation scientists, and other land users. Third, any relocation needs to be genuinely voluntary, legally transparent, fairly compensated, and supported by adequate services. Fourth, dialogue approaches should be given priority in solving problems. Finally, conservation policy needs to recognize that conservation serves human development and that local communities are conservation partners.

The Maasai case is not only a Tanzanian story. It reflects a global challenge: how to protect nature without dispossessing those who have lived with it for generations. True and peaceful conservation should protect land, wildlife, culture, dignity, and peace together. When people are told to leave their homeland in the name of saving nature, the world must ask: whose nature is being protected, and at what human cost?

Keywords: Tanzania, Maasai, Northern Tanzania, Northern, land rights, conservation, development, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, Ngorongoro

123...192Page 2 of 192