Abstract

Some scholars have lauded the decapitation tactics as a relevant approach by Nigeria, the United States of America and Israel in their struggle against the expansion and influence of terrorist groups. The decapitation strategy has, basically, three routes: killing, capturing, and capturing and then killing the leader(s) of terrorist cells. Through a critical analysis of the arguments for the decapitation strategy, this research contends that this approach will not stem the proliferation of terrorist groups. The elimination of the leader(s) of terrorist groups does not necessarily play a colossal role in mitigating terrorism but has contributed to its surge in places like Africa with links to world-renowned cells like Al-Qaeda. Also, the study defends the position that it is morally unjustified to kill terrorist leaders without a fair trial in a competent court of law. Using Boko Haram and Hamas as illustrations, this study contends that targeted killings subvert the existence and essence of the criminal justice system. Taking inspiration from the deterrence theory of punitive justice, this research submits that the decapitation strategy has served as a basis for the escalation and proliferation of terrorist groups rather than serving as deterrence against the possibility of recurrence.