MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

A STUDY OF THE LEGAL COMPLIANCE THEORIES;

A UGANDAN CONTEXT.
By Mayanja Benson*
LLB, Makerere University, Uganda

*
Mayanja Benson is an undergraduate student pursuing Bachelor of Laws at Makerere University. He is
fervent advocate for human rights and rule of law. He has directed efforts to molding and furthering
conversation on the same issues through competitive series of debate and moots in Law School. He is
the defending Champion for the Inter University Human Rights Debate Championship 2020 as well as
the Champion of the Makerere Law School Moot Court Competitions going ahead to participate in many
more intellectual oratory battles across the World. He is a Millennium Fellow, Class of 2020 seeking to
reinvigorate the strides towards alleviating social injustice in the society. He has made numerous
publications with online bloggers and dispensed a plethora of legal opinions on matters of state politics
and human rights. He currently serves as the President Western Uganda Debate Society and Rt.Hon.
Speaker of the Makerere Debating Union. He envisages to make an indelible contribution to the student
leadership of the Makerere Law Society in the intending Transitional Government 2021 as the Speaker.

1|Page
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 4
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 8
3. OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Overall Objective ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 9
4. Expected Output .................................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 9
5. Justification of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 10
6. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 10
7. CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................. 12
8. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................. 14
8.1 The Study Design ................................................................................................................................. 14
8.2 Area of Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 15
8.3 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 15
8.4 Tools of Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 16
8.5 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 17
8.6 Ethical Consideration .......................................................................................................................... 17
9. Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................................... 18
10. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 18
BIBLIOGRAPHRY ..................................................................................................................................... 19

2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Justice Law and Order Sector – JLOS

Law Enforcement Authorities – LEA

Margaret Levi Contingent Consent Model – LCC

Normative Social Influence – NSI

Presidential COVID19 Directives – PCDs

Public Legal Compliance Theories – PLCT

Scholz Compliance Model – SCM

Social Contract Theory – SCT

Stanley Milgram’s Social Experiment – MSE

Tom Tyler’s Legitimacy Theory – TLT

Uganda Police Force – UPF

Uganda Peoples Defense Forces – UPDF

International Human Rights Law – IHRL

3|Page
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper attempts to delve into the enigma of legal compliance theories in Uganda by
proposing the pedagogical and pragmatic approach through which this may be achieved. It
is structured as a research proposal for the very essence that it is one. My research has
shown that there are minimal resources, both intellectual and financial invested by
relevant Government and Non-Governmental Stakeholders to ascertain the particular legal
compliance theories that relate to the Ugandan jurisdiction. It shall be my argument and
rightly so, that the proposal creates an epiphany from which better policy resolution and
reformation can be guided to bolster respect for rule of law and human rights in Uganda
and broadly to say, on the African continent. The urgency of this study is embedded in the
nearing of the electioneering season wherein in the concepts and principles accentuated in
the paper will be put to test by the old regime and a new government attempting to assert
legitimacy and enforce the law.

Therefore, the Introduction comprehensively establishes the legitimacy of Governments,

their laws and their ancillary concepts of conformity, compliance and obedience. The
nuances therein posit that different policy strategies best attain them singularly or
simultaneously to maximize effectiveness. A case study is later done on Stanley Milgram’s
Social Experiment against which a model is developed to guide the research study into the
Ugandan context.

Key Words: Legitimacy, Conformity, Compliance, Obedience, Compliance Theories, Milgram’s

Social Experiment

___________________________________________________________________________________________

4|Page
1.1 Legitimacy of Government

The Law of Nature is as old as mankind itself (Locke, 1952, p. 2); its concoction and
implementation is the genesis of human conformity, compliance and obedience to a set of
rules perceived to be necessary for individual and societal survival.
This paper refers to Conformity as the identification of an individual with a precise form of
implicit expectation generally dubbed as a social norm. By contrast, Compliance refers to
acquiescence to explicit expectations that can take a range of forms but categorically
surmounting to written law. The concept of obedience should not be confused with the
concept of compliance for there is a thin line between them (Julien, 2010, pp. 493-517).
Obedience is a component or subset of compliance attained regardless of whether the
individual has consented or been coerced by Law Enforcement Authorities (LEA) whereas
compliance is premised on the idea that the recipient party has consented to the explicit
obligation (Hannah Arendt, 2003, p. 42). Obedience is analogically defined as paying your
taxes whether you wish to pay or not for it is in accordance with the law while compliance
is paying your tax with the inherent conviction that you choose to do so.
The law of nature is hinged on the principle that man is inherently free and obeys no
authority higher than him. A free man can make himself a servant to someone else, by way
of contract, through selling his service in exchange for wage. This often puts him into the
household of his master, and under its ordinary discipline giving the master a power over
him that is temporary and is no greater than what is contained in the contract between
them. The evolution of freedom of contract espoused the Social Contract Theory (SCT)
where a free man surrenders his rights to a government, placing himself under its authority
and discipline to protect his life and property in return. He submits to be regulated by laws
made by the government, only as far as it is required for the preservation of himself and the
rest of the society in spite of the great restriction of liberty he previously had under the law
of nature. This is fair in his eyes because the other members of the society are doing the
same thing. He also gives up his natural power to punish those that wrong him and puts it
at the disposal of the executive power of the society. To govern way of life and punish those
that break their implicit and/or explicit contractual obligation with the state and fellow
citizens, the Government makes law under the SCT. (Locke, 1952, p. 43)

5|Page
1.2 Legitimacy of Law
Legitimacy is the right to rule and the recognition of that right, by the ruled (ed. Justice
Tankebe & Goradz Mesko, 2015). Governments derive legitimacy to make and enforce laws
in an established political society because citizens have given up their natural power,
passing it into its hands to determine the acceptable way of life and prescribe appropriate
punishments for members of the society that commit crimes (Locke, 1952, p. 27). Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau agree that Governments possess the legitimacy to make laws for the
protection of society and its property. However when laws perceived to be in exercise of
power beyond that which is granted through the SCT, they become illegitimate thus
instilling a spirit of noncompliance in the citizenry.
Whereas Hobbes argues that the power of the Government is absolute such that, “The
Might is always Right!” Rousseau and Locke advance the argument that the laws will only
be legitimate if they are incentivized by the general good will of the ruled, aimed at
protecting society’s livelihood and property (Laskar, 2013) thus translating into
compliance. By contrast, where the laws are perceived to be in contravention with the
general good will, there shall certainly be a pushback factor through civil disobedience
which basically denotes noncompliance (Calmann-Levy & Arendt, 1972).
1.3 Issues of disobedience and compliance
Compliance with legitimate laws in a state is explained by two fundamental principles of
SCT and Normative Social Influence (NSI). The former is premised on two pacts; Pactum
Unionis and Pactum Subjectionis. By the first pact of unionis, society undertakes to respect
each other and live in peace and harmony. By the second pact of subjectionis, people unite
together and pledge to obey an authority and surrender part of their freedom and rights to
that authority. Society is thus expected to live harmoniously whilst obeying the authority
and its laws set by the governing authority (Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2017).
John Sabini defines NSI as a psychological theory of compliance epitomized by the
descriptive and injunctive norms of society (Sabini, 2017). With Descriptive norms, the law
is either complied with or disobeyed because other people in society in a similar situation
do the same. In the alternative, with the Injunctive norms, the law is complied with because
it is explicitly expected of them and failure to do so may attract sanctions.

6|Page
Research shows that the fear of sanction drives citizenry to abide laws (Braithwaite &
Reinhart, 2007) while others posit that citizens willingly comply because they believe that
it is beneficial for self-preservation to do so, regardless of threat or persuasion; an
extension of the law of nature.
The nature of compliance and conformity to the supreme law is defined by the existence of
implicit expectations; where moral appeal is made to recipients to conform to a set social
course of action and explicit expectations; arising out of legislated citizenry obligations
where compliance and obedience is a predetermined result. For the case of explicit
expectations, there must be a structure and system entrusted to ensure compliance and
obedience unlike with implicit expectations where conformity may not be enforced.
In Uganda, the Government is constitutionally and Executively structured with a Law
Enforcement body predominantly in the Uganda Police Force (UPF), Uganda Peoples
Defense Forces (UPDF) (Constitution, 1995). The Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS)
which is a collective of Uganda Law Society, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Uganda
Registration Services Bureau and many others cordially ensures either proactive or
reactive compliance to the laws of the Government (JLOS, 2020). This is often done through
civic education and sensitization as well as the requirements of compliance and where
there is failure of public compliance, the offenders of the law are punished following a
judicial process guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution.
I.4 Conclusion
Therefore, it has been important to understand the origin of legitimacy of any Government
in a political society to make laws for the citizens’ greater good and its duty to ensure
compliance of the citizenry with the said laws. In Uganda, the most contentious issue is
neither the legitimacy of the Government nor that of the laws, but rather the question of
what informs public compliance to the law.

7|Page
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
2.1 Statement of the Problem

The greatest challenge of many democratic Governments and Uganda particular, is the
question of how to bolster public compliance with the law using a model that does not
trample upon the international and domestic human rights of its citizens. (Pyrcz, 1981)
Suffice to note that the citizenry doesn’t cede off all its rights and thus while enforcing the
law, the Government must be keen to also comply with the IHRL instruments it has ratified.
The rationale is that the law is a representation of the will of a citizenry which would never
subject itself to state torture in the through SCT. The introduction has been keen to show
that the legitimacy of any Government remains founded in as far as it performs its
contractual obligation of protecting life and property; short of which, legitimacy dwindles.
What compliance theory makes you drive on the left hand side of the road, why do you pay
your taxes and what informs your decision when you choose to pay a traffic officer about to
fine you for over speeding? The question thus begs, what tenets inform Uganda’s citizenry
compliance to the law amid LEA’s attempt to enforce compliance and obedience in respect
of domestic and IHRL?

2.2 Challenges in attaining Compliance

Social institutions, more particularly the LEA need legitimacy if they are to develop,
operate, and reproduce themselves effectively (Easton, 1965). However, it is intriguing why
the Ugandan LEA which have undisputed legitimacy grapple with low compliance levels
(Ochola, 2019). The UPF as part of JLOS, adopted Community Policing as a pro-active
approach to fulfill their mandate of maintaining law and order. With this non-reactionary
initiative, the police engages the community to take up the joint responsibility of ensuring
security and this has slightly increased compliance due to community involvement (JLOS,
2020). Nonetheless, the rate of legal compliance in Uganda remains wanting.
The controversy thus is whether the existing system of actors has failed to ensure
compliance because society doesn’t have trust in LEA (Nooteboom, 2005) or if the Uganda’s
society’s descriptive norm of noncompliance superseded the injunctive norm that fosters

8|Page
compliance and obedience. How effectively has Uganda’s LEA studied the problem and can
a remedy be sought? That is the question this research study would task to answer.

3. OBJECTIVE

3.1 Overall Objective

To ascertain the greatest incentive of Uganda’s society to comply with the law.

3.2 Specific Objectives

- To identify how NSI impacts the Ugandan society.
- To examine which model of governance fosters more compliance in society.
- To find out the greatest incentive of Uganda society to disobey the law.

3.3 Research Questions

- Whether the NSI greatly informs legal compliance in the Ugandan society.
- Whether the existing LEA approach is an impediment to public compliance with the
law.
- Whether there are Public Legal Compliance Theories (PLCT) that substantially
captures Ugandan context.

4. Expected Output
To influence the LEA to create a Ugandan legal compliance model of governance. After
understanding the incentive for domestic compliance, the model can create enforcement
strategies that encourage voluntary compliance. This may be through amendment of laws
or redefining the descriptive norm of Ugandan citizenry to comply. This would improve
regulatory efficiency by reducing unnecessary enforcement and compliance costs
associated with legal enforcement such as teargas and military hardware.

4.1 Scope of the Study

The study shall focus on the laws of Uganda that are enshrined in the constitution, acts of
parliament and directives dispensed from the Executive powers. The study shall evaluate
enforcement policies through LEA such as UPF, UPDF to find out the loopholes in enforcing

9|Page
obedience. A brief analysis shall be made of the public compliance rates prior to the
Presidential COVID19 Directives (PCDs) during Corona virus pandemic, and after.

5. Justification of the Study

There has been little effort invested in the research of a Ugandan model of compliance to
the law. This study attempts to break the ice in that department and accelerate the ability
of national actors to evaluate how well and why Ugandans comply with the enacted laws.
More importantly, LEA should be in position to identify what model of governance allows
them to attain higher compliance levels. Future researchers may use the study to develop a
framework bent on intrinsically modelling compliance in citizens not just to State laws but
also institutional regulations.

6. LITERATURE REVIEW
The most commendable attempt to examine PLCT has been cited in US Based Tom Tyler’s
Legitimacy Theory (TLT) and the Stanley Milgram Social Experiment (MSE). This study
shall review literature on the two approaches and assess whether they answer the
questions of the study.
Review of the TLT
TLT suggests that law makers and law enforcers would do much better to make legal
systems worthy of respect than to try to instill fear of punishment. He finds that people
obey the law primarily because they believe in respecting legitimate authority (Tyler,
2006). He argues that people’s motivation to comply with the law lies at the heart of crime-
control policy and thus should be intrinsic without fear or coercion from the state; yet
much of the criminal policy is premised on the idea that compliance is secured by the
presence of formal policing that accommodates sanctions for default (Tonry, 1995). It is
important to note that the sanctions are social control mechanisms entrenched in the idea
that credible risks of sanction persuades rational-choice individuals that – while otherwise
desirable – a criminal act is not worth the risk of prescribed penalty.
However, peculiar to the enforcement of law and supplementary to the sanctions, is the
state sponsored use of threat, violence and force by police to resolve conflict and enforce
legally-prescribed conduct (Banton, 1965) a justification for the codification of UPF force to

10 | P a g e
enforce the provisions of the law using force (Constitution, 1995). Police legitimacy and
public consent are necessary conditions of the justifiable use of state power; those who are
subject to policing must see the police as right and proper in order to obey or comply
(Reiner, 2010).
Nonetheless, TLT also suggests people’s compliance may stem at least as much, if not more,
from personal commitment to law-abiding behavior, (Robinson & Darley, 2004) regardless
of the risk of sanctions. Based upon the idea that people comply with the law because they
believe it is the right thing to do, a normative model of crime-control posits that
institutions can secure compliance and cooperation by developing policies that generate
legitimacy (Tyler, 2006) rather than enforcing obedience.
Criticism of the TLT
The evidence for TLT remains almost entirely US based. The lack of a robust comparative
empirical base means that we do not know whether the central tenets of his model of social
regulation (focused on public compliance) hold in other contexts such as Uganda. The US
context may predispose its citizens to be especially sensitive to the way they are treated by
their LEA (Tonry, 1995) given that US ranks higher in the Democracy index and also noting
that Uganda has more rights violations in law enforcement by LEA. The political culture of
the US emphasizes notions of small government and the need to protect citizens from an
over-powerful state. In Uganda where the small government notion is less appreciated, TLT
may prove less effective. Even if successful in narrow terms, policies to improve public
trust and institutional legitimacy in Europe may not increase public compliance with the
law in Uganda perse. It thus doesn’t fall in the confines of Question 3 of the intended study
and that is why the study then looks to Milgram’s theory of compliance.
Review of the MSE
In Stanley Milgram’s behavioral theory of obedience, a social experiment was carried out
where volunteers were asked by Dr. Milgram from Yale University to apply different
voltage of electricity shocks to innocent subjects. The larger percentage of volunteers
obeyed the directives of the instructor and continued to apply higher notches of voltage on
request, despite pleas from the subjects to stop the process. The greatest rationale for
obedience by the volunteers was the belief that they were contributing to a greater cause of
science and thus the experiment was necessary for scientific advancement. It thus alluded
11 | P a g e
to the fact that many bestowed legitimacy in the Yale instructors and the intrinsic necessity
of the directives to enhance scientific research (Milgram, 1974). This would be the same
rationale for the German Nazis that were accessories to the mass execution of the Jews in
the Extermination Camps in Germany, the belief that they were actors in a cause of greater
good, led by Hitler (Blass, 1992). For many others, they believed in the repercussions of
disobedience of the Nazi philosophy and as such, deference was largely obtained.

Criticism of the MSE

MSE was ethically questioned basing on its deceitful nature whereby the subjects had been
given a written script for which to correlate with every level of voltage applied. It was
equally criticized for lacking a guiding theory upon which it founded the social experiment
(Cialdini, et al., 1991). The MSE equally doesn’t answer the effect of the NSI on the decision
of the volunteers to comply and thus only examines undue influence and coercion on an
individual volunteer. This means that if volunteers were huddled together, there is
reasonable belief that they might have responded differently to the instructions from
Milgram’s experiment as a collective. Thus, it doesn’t answer question 1 and 3 of the
intended study.

Suffice to note that the literature review on TLT and MSE does not independently and
satisfactorily answer the study questions, owing to the existing ethical and structural
shortcomings (MSE) and being predominantly based on a political and legal dispensation
unique to that in Uganda (TLT). The review shows that they don’t incorporate the impact of
the NSI on legal compliance.

7. CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The Research study shall be guided by the Scholz Compliance Model (SCM). It shall
juxtapose an examination of NSI with the concept of legitimacy of Uganda’s law and LEA,
thereby drawing a pattern of Uganda’s public compliance with legal provisions. The study
is expected to base the Ugandan pattern of compliance on the intrinsic and extrinsic social
behavior of Ugandans towards the legitimacy of the law and LEA. The SCM appreciates the
concept of legitimacy of the LEA action and how society influences citizenry compliance
based on the NSI (Scholz, 2003, pp. 139-203) a justification for its use as a guiding theory.

12 | P a g e
Scholz criticizes Margaret Levi’s Contingent Consent Model (LCC) which assumes that
actors comply with legal obligations because the state is trustworthy and that other actors
in society, faced with the same obligations, comply with them too (Levi, 1997). He says that
independently, those tenets do not define change in compliance patterns. Scholz argues
that his model integrates the main motivations in PLCT of deterrence and duty;
respectively, the fear of punishment and the normative sense of having to comply with
legal obligations, a case LCC doesn’t make. He believes that some citizens will only meet
their obligations if they are coerced and also considers that compliance is motivated first
and foremost by a moral commitment, although he adds that this commitment is contingent
on the actions of the state and other citizens; a partial concession with LCC (Scholz, 2003, p.
190).

NSI encompasses the ideas of conformity and obedience to the law such that the implicit
and explicit expectations of Government from the citizens are recognized (Heinzen &
Goodfriend, 2017). With implicit expectations, there is encouragement of conformity since
the regulations are implied from the law of nature which would allow for citizens to apply
natural conscience and do what is humanly right thus garnering conformity. Where the law
is written to instigate explicit expectations, the idea of compliance is derived from the
existence of sanctions for defaulters of the said laws, especially in the case of Uganda. Long
term compliance with laws accompanied with sanctions attracts obedience basing on a
gradual shift in the injunctive and descriptive norms of that particular Ugandan society that
has been in compliance with the said law.

Scrutiny using a comparative analysis of events before and after the Corona Virus
pandemic which forced Uganda to issue several PCDs such as a lockdown, social distancing,
curfew etc. on 18 March 2020 onwards, places the study in position to use SCM and
understand Uganda’s compliance patterns. Important to note is that the higher level of
compliance to the law during this time than any other time recorded in Uganda (Enanga,
2020). This study wishes to ascertain whether the compliance is owed to NSI of Ugandans
which advances the belief that their compliance is joint participation in fighting a greater
cause or it is a reaction through injunctive norms to uphold and obey the given regulations
because of elevated legitimacy in the LEA. The study shall also assess whether the

13 | P a g e
compliance and obedience is founded on the undesirable risk of sanctions that follow
disobedience is too great a risk to take.

Therefore the study shall use the SCM and incorporate the theory of legitimacy of
institutions, legislation and directives then weigh it against the impact of NSI to establish
the extent of compliance in Uganda in regard to the descriptive, injunctive norms, existence
of sanctions or coercion and threat by LEA.

Normative Social Influence Public Legal Compliance

(Independent Variable) (Dependent variable)

Affect the relationship

Severe sanctions

Nature of institutional legitimacy et. al

8. METHODOLOGY

8.1 The Study Design

The study design shall follow purely qualitative approach aimed at soliciting opinions and
perceptions of the general public as to what they understand as compliance and their
incentive to obey or disobey a given law (Bruce, 2009). It shall encompass a before and
after study design to allow the analysis of the extent of change in social behavior towards
enacted laws and regulations by the state. The extent of change enables an evaluation as to
what causes the change and how the information can be harnessed to aid in future policy
considerations aimed at improving compliance. Incorporated in the study shall be a
retrospective prospective analysis to make founded commentary on the anticipated degree
of compliance and obedience by Ugandan society, to a given legal provision.

14 | P a g e
8.2 Area of Data Collection
The study would focus on Makerere hill particularly University students, staff members
and the neighboring areas of the University. The justification of the selected location is that;
not only is it most convenient for the researcher to access the volunteers of the study, it
also possesses a vast populous of citizens living in the different social and academic strata
which is essential to understanding why a particular class of persons comply with the law;
equally so, to understand why that same class is slow to comply with certain laws of
Uganda.

Makerere University is a public institution of higher learning started in 1922 as a humble

technical school called Uganda Technical School and in 1970, it became an independent
national university offering undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Today, it is host to
38,000 students with 10 constitutive Colleges with its current Chancellor as Prof. Ezra
Suruma. It has been dubbed a fountain of knowledge by various prominent figures and as
thus, becomes the epicenter for the research study.

Makerere is located in Kawempe Division. It is bordered by Bwaise to the north, Mulago to

the east, Wandegeya and Nakasero to the southeast, Old Kampala to the
south, Naakulabye to the southwest. Kasubi and Kawaala lie to the west of Makerere. This
location lies approximately 2.5 kilometers (1.6 mi), by road, north of Kampala's central
business district. (Google, 2020) The study shall however take into consideration
Naakulabye and Wandegeya because they are most convenient

8.3 Sampling Procedure

The study shall use a Non Random Sampling Technique with emphasis on the Quota
sampling method (Babbie, 2004) to take into consideration a total of 100 volunteers,
categorized as follows; 20 students who offer a course shy of any legal knowledge in their
study outline, 20 students who offer a course with listed legal knowledge in their outline,
20 lecturers with academic legal knowledge background and 20 lecturers without. The last
20 shall come from convenience sampling from within the surrounding area of the
University that are neither students nor lecturers.

15 | P a g e
8.4 Tools of Data Collection
Focus Groups

The essence of the Focus group is to listen and observe the interaction between
knowledgeable informants of the study in order to assess how the NSI would impact the
various perspectives of the volunteers within the research itself (Ramenyi, 2011, p. 50).
The selected 60 student and community volunteers shall be grouped into 3 categorical
focus factions to allow interactive debate and discussions every week to tell of experiences
which could have exacerbated their initial opinion on their preferred compliance model. In
the alternative, they could share on the experiences that may have caused them to change
their initial opinion on their preferred compliance model (Babbie, 2004).

Questionnaires and Interviews

Interview is a conversation with a specific purpose of gathering information (Bruce, 2009,

p. 101) and questionnaires are defined as data collecting devices that consist of a list or
series of questions, when answered by appropriate informants helps the researcher get
insight to the possible answers of the research question. (Ramenyi, 2011)

Volunteers shall be asked to fill out a questionnaire which shall allocate objective answers
framed with the aim of assessing the psychologically grounding of the participants. The
questionnaire is framed in such manner to allow for objective structured questions and
opinion based questions from which the evaluation of which compliance model is effective
on a particular volunteer (Bruce, 2009, pp. 101-157). A sample of the basic questionnaire
will bear such questions

16 | P a g e
 Structured Questions
Would you disobey an unfair law? A. Yes
B. No
Should a collective society choose to A. Yes
disobey an unfair law? B. No
Do you think more sanctions result into A. Yes
better compliance rates? B. No
Do you think Society influences A. Yes
obedience to the laws? B. No
Do you think disobedience laws is more A. Yes
attributed to failure of enforcement or B. No
illegitimacy of the law in question?
Opinion based questions
What do you understand by legitimacy of
government and laws?
Why do you abide by the laws of Uganda?
Why do you think people break the law?
What do you think greatly influences
compliance to the law?
What should be done to improve legal
compliance?

8.5 Data Analysis

Through the data amassed from interviews, questionnaires and focus groups, the study
intends to undergo a data reduction process. The study shall develop a guiding pattern that
sieves out the thematic concerns of disobedience and compliance and the justification for
the same. The questionnaires and interviews shall be tailored to address the fundamental
thematic concerns by minimizing verbiage and unrelated information by asking precise
and concise questions (Babbie, 2004) relating to an individual’s opinion on PLCT in
Uganda.

8.6 Ethical Consideration

Mutual consent

All the members that participate in the study shall give informed written consent to
participate in each stage with an option to withdraw their consent in accordance with the
ethical guide (Ramenyi, 2011, p. 139).

Beneficence v non maleficence

The study acknowledges that there is benefit accrued to the participants with a humble
financial remuneration for their contribution in the study. Their participation doesn’t

17 | P a g e
endanger their positions of work or study nor their lives because the study is protected by
the ambits of the law under of the Constitution (Constitution, 1995).

9. Limitations of the Study

Limited resources to expand and sustain the sample size

The study shall be limited by insufficient funds to sustain a larger sample size of students,
lecturers and community dwellers of the Makerere Hill. This study is best achieved with a
wider sample size which is constantly visited and interacted with but all this requires a
steady investment of money that is not readily available to the researcher.

Inadequate time is a limiting factor to this study. To understand patterns and nature of
compliance and disobedience, one needs to spend a lot of time assessing the behavioral
change in the volunteers and subjecting them to different circumstances aimed at gauging
what point they begin to comply or disobey. Unfortunately, the researcher is constrained
by other class and co-curricular activities to best achieve the aims of the study within the
given time frame needed to submit.

Limited Documentary research in form of books addressing the Ugandan situation

Very few national bodies have dedicated themselves to assessing compliance levels to laws
in Uganda. It thus limits the nature of research because there is little domestic content on
the issue in question. The notion of Rule of Law merely focuses on state actors and arms of
Government adhering to the law but does not delve into the concept of public compliance
with the law (JLOS, 2020). For this reason it becomes prudent that the research proposal is
aimed at ensuring that breaking the ice in this vital areas.

10. CONCLUSION
The research proposal thus addresses a core aspect of governance in Uganda. Developing
countries need to build capacity in order to fulfil their contractual obligation to its citizens,
which is guarantee safety and prosperity of life and property through ensuring compliance
with state laws. The research aims at ascertaining the rationale for (non)compliance in
Uganda and creating a foundation to establish a model through which the government can

18 | P a g e
achieve a greater compliance rate essentially translating into better governance and
gradual development both socially and politically of the Republic of Uganda.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHRY
Babbie, E., 2004. THE PRACTICE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH. 10th ed. s.l.:Thompson.

Banton, M., 1965. The Policeman In The Community. Book Reviews, LXIV(2).

Blass, T., 1992. The Social Psychology of Stanley Milgram. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Volume XXV, pp. 277-329.

Braithwaite, M. & Reinhart, 2007. Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation.
LAW AND POLICY, I(140).

Bruce, B. L., 2009. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. Boston, Allyn and
Bacon Print.

Calmann-Levy & Arendt, e. H., 1972. Du mensonge à la violence. Paris: s.n.

Cialdini, R., Kallgren, C. & Reno, R., 1991. A FOCUS THEORY OF NORMATIVE CONDUCT: A THEORETICAL
REFINEMENT AND REEVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF NORMS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Volume XXIV, pp. 201-235.

Constitution, 1995. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA. In: Chapter 12. s.l.:s.n.

Constitution, U., 1995. As amended ed. s.l.:s.n.

Easton, D., 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.

ed. Justice Tankebe & Goradz Mesko, 2015. Trust and Legitmacy in Criminal Justice. s.l.:Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland.

Enanga, F., 2020. COMPLIANCE TO PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES. Kampala, Uganda Media Centre.

Google, 2020. Location of Makerere At Google Maps. Google Maps..

Hannah Arendt, 2003. Responsibility and Judgment. 3 ed. New York: Schocken.

Heinzen, T. & Goodfriend, W., 2017. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. s.l.:SAGE Publications.

JLOS, 2020. INNOVATIONS CHANGING LIVES OF ORDINARY UGANDANS, Kampala: LPLC Consult, Uganda.

Julien, E., 2010. La Conformation des gouvernes. Revue Francaise de science Politique, 60(3), pp. 493-
517.

19 | P a g e
Laskar, M., 2013. Summary of the Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Social
Contract Theory, 4 April, p. 6.

Levi, M., 1997. CONSENT DISSENT PATRIOTISM. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.

Locke, J., 1952. 2nd Treatise of Government. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Milgram, S., 1974. OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY; An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.

Nooteboom, 2005. Police Reform and the Problem of Trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9 April, pp. 443-
445.

Ochola, O., 2019. ANNUAL CRIME REPORT, Kampala: Uganda Media Centre.

Pyrcz, G., 1981. Obedience, support, and authority: the limits of political obligation in a democracy.
Canadian Journal of Political Science, XIV(2).

Ramenyi, D., 2011. FIELD METHODS FRO ACADEMIC RESEARCH: INTERVIEWS,FOCUS GROUPS
QUESTIONNAIRES. 2nd ed. s.l.:Academic Publishing International Ltd.

Reiner, R., 2010. The Politics of the Police. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, V(2).

Robinson & Darley, 2004. Does Criminal Law Deter. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, II(24), pp. 173-205.

Sabini, J., 2017. Normative Social Influence. In: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. s.l.:SAGE Publications Inc., p. 204.

Scholz, J. T., 2003. Contractual Compliance and the Federal Income Tax System. Journal of Law & Policy,
XIII(166), pp. 139-203.

Tonry, M., 1995. Deterence and Incapacitation. In: D. S. Nagin, ed. HAND BOOK ON CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT. s.l.:Oxford University Press.

Tyler, T. R., 2006. Why People Obey The Law. s.l.:Yale University Press.

20 | P a g e