When the Watchdog Becomes the Wolf: Erik Prince’s Proposal to Build a Private Army in Nigeria and the Dangerous Narratives It Ignites
In a dramatic post on X (formerly Twitter), Lebanese-Australian commentator and influencer Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal publicly shared a controversial claim attributed to Erik Prince, the embattled former Blackwater founder. According to Nawfal (quoting La Gaceta), Prince is now purportedly plotting to establish a private military force in Nigeria, with the express purpose of defending Christian communities he says are under threat. The post reads:
> “🇺🇸🇳🇬 BLACKWATER FOUNDER LAUNCHES PRIVATE ARMY TO DEFEND CHRISTIANS IN NIGERIA
Erik Prince says he’s building a private military company to protect Nigerian Christians from ISIS-linked militants and wants Vatican funding to do it.
…
‘Why not help my brothers protect Nigerian Christians from the Muslims who are massacring them?’
… Over 7,000 Christians have reportedly been killed in Nigeria this year alone.”
The viral post triggered a wave of reactions—among them, a fervent response from a self-styled Christian activist named BTB Bosco (@btbbosco). Bosco echoed the call, urging the Pope and Catholic nations broadly to endorse and fund what he described as a “Vatican Army” to divide Nigeria and defend its Christian population in the south. He concluded his post, “Retweet this with a simple Amen — if you agree!”
Such pronouncements demand sober scrutiny. They raise alarming questions about narrative construction, geopolitical posturing, and external influence under the guise of humanitarian intervention. For Nigerians—and especially citizens in religiously tense regions—these declarations bring serious implications with potentially dire consequences. Below, I unpack and analyze key dimensions of this unfolding story.
1. Erik Prince: From Blackwater to Mercenary Ventures
To fully grasp the gravity, one must revisit Erik Prince’s résumé. Founder of the controversial private military contractor Blackwater, Prince made international headlines over Blackwater’s conduct in Iraq, especially the infamous 2007 Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, where dozens of unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed by Blackwater contractors.
After selling Blackwater and rebranding into new ventures, Prince remained active in deploying private security networks globally. He has floated proposals for private contracting in conflict zones ranging from Africa to South America. In 2025, for instance, he struck a deal with the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo to help secure and tax its mineral wealth—an initiative that critics warn risks entangling state authority with mercenary influence.
Similarly, in Ecuador, Prince forged a public “strategic alliance” with the president to bolster the government’s fight against narco-crime, a move that sparked intense debate over sovereignty, transparency, and human rights.
Now, his name is being invoked in connection with Nigeria, a vastly different and far more complex terrain of ethnic, religious, and security fault lines.
2. Parsing the Nigeria Claim: Verifiable or Speculative?
At present, Prince’s Nigeria proposal—as described by Nawfal—is unverified by credible primary sources. Several independent media outlets and analysts caution that the narrative is speculative or based on secondhand reports.
For example, Medium published an essay entitled “The Unholy Contract: How Blackwater’s Erik Prince Could Pitch Mercenary Protection to the Vatican”, framing the story as hypothetical rather than confirmed. Likewise, social media posts announcing “Blackwater Founder Urges Pope Leo to Fund Private Army for Nigerian Christians” abound, but lack substantiation from recognized global news outlets.
Nonetheless, even as conjecture or rumor, the potential trajectories of such a move must be taken seriously. Whether Prince has already launched operations or is merely exploring options, the narratives being circulated serve ideological and strategic ends.
3. Dangerous Narratives: Christian Genocide, Foreign Rescue, and Division
The framing of “persecuted Christians under siege” has become a potent rhetorical device in parts of global discourse. It functions as a moral rallying cry—and, in some corners, a pretext for external intervention.
Christian Genocide Narrative. Claims that “over 7,000 Christians have been killed this year alone” mirror figures cited by U.S. evangelist-political actors. For instance, U.S. Congressman Riley Moore recently urged the State Department to designate Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern,” citing a 7,000-death figure for 2025 alone. However, Nigeria’s government, Nigeria’s Christian Association, and independent scholars all caution that the broader security crisis involves multiple actors and that violence is not strictly sectarian.
Foreign Savior Complex. The idea that Western actors or religious forces must rescue oppressed Christians in Africa perpetuates a neo-colonial lens. In the case of Prince, the appeal to Pope Leo XIV underscores how religious symbolism is being folded into military or paramilitary plans.
Partition and Division. The Bosco tweet—a call for southern Christian states to "split off" from the north—amounts to calls for geopolitical secession guided by religious identity. That logic, if acted upon, could ignite deeper fragmentation and conflict within Nigeria.
Thus, even before any boots hit the ground, the narrative machinery is in motion: threat, rescue, division. It is a narrative long used in other regions to justify external force under the banner of protecting a vulnerable population.
4. Why Nigeria? Why Now?
Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, sits at a socalled “fault line” of religious pluralism, ethnic diversity, and protracted insecurity. The country’s central “Middle Belt” and states such as Benue, Plateau, and Kaduna have witnessed frequent attacks, communal clashes, and kidnappings.
At the international level, Nigeria is receiving growing attention from foreign governments and faith-based actors. U.S. Republicans, in particular, are spotlighting alleged “Christian persecution” in Nigeria as part of broader geopolitical narratives of religious freedom and global Christianity. Ted Cruz, for example, recently accused Nigeria of enabling “mass murder” of Christians, citing casualty and destruction figures without independent corroboration.
In this climate, the idea of a private Christian-oriented army in Nigeria is not just a fringe fantasy—it fits into a rising chorus of external actors staking claims in Nigeria’s security and religious discourse.
5. Risks, Realities & Responses for Nigeria
a) Sovereignty and Legal Liability
No African nation has granted an open license for foreign private armies to supervise religious law enforcement or civil security. The deployment of foreign mercenaries without state oversight runs afoul of constitutional sovereignty, international law, and existing Nigerian defense protocols.
b) Escalation and Sectarian Polarization
If a private force is portrayed as defending Christians exclusively, it risks being framed by opposing groups as a sectarian militia. That coloring could spark backlash, retaliation, or even new cycles of violence in parts of Nigeria already racked by communal tension.
c) Proxy Wars and Strategic Infiltration
Foreign actors may deploy ostensibly humanitarian or religious missions as strategic footholds—gaining influence in key regions, building alliances with local actors, or exerting pressure on state institutions.
d) Narrative Vigilance
Whether or not Prince’s plan is real, the rising narrative must be challenged. We must call out misinformation, demand verifiable evidence, and resist narratives that dehumanize or demonize communities.
e) Anchoring Resilience at Home
Nigerians—especially security, civil society, and media institutions—must deepen internal accountability, grassroot interfaith bridges, and strengthen civil defense capacities. Power must remain rooted in Nigerian institutions and inclusive structures—not outsourced or symbolic.
6. What to Watch, What to Do
1. Verify primary sources. Monitor established investigative outlets (Reuters, AP, BBC, PREMIUM Times, and others) for confirmation or debunking of the Prince narrative.
2. Track diplomatic and ecclesiastical responses. Will the Vatican address the call? Will the Nigerian government comment?
3. Watch foreign congressional moves. U.S. legislators are already pushing narratives of persecution; how they legislate, fund, or sanction Nigeria will matter.
4. Watch local media and civil society. Nigerians must lead the framing. Non-Christian and Muslim voices must be included in narratives of security and justice.
5. Strengthen internal security and trust. The more Nigerians trust their own institutions, the less vulnerable they are to external interventions masquerading as protection.
Conclusion
Whether the Erik Prince “private army for Nigeria’s Christians” claim is fully operational, in planning, or merely speculative, it has already shifted discourse. It injects a potent mixture of religious moralism, external savior narratives, and latent secessionist sentiment into what should be a locally anchored dialogue on security.
This is no longer a distant rumor: it is a narrative battleground. Nigeria’s sovereignty, its religious pluralism, and its peace will depend on the ability of Nigerians—leaders, scholars, faith voices, media and ordinary citizens—to expose, interrogate, and resist these foreign scripts disguised as rescue missions.
Let us remain vigilant. Let us demand evidence. And let us ensure that identity, peace, and safety in Nigeria are preserved—not handed away to those who cloak themselves in salvation.
0 Comments