Why the Senate should punish and reward Governors

I think the former governor of Kiambu County, Ferdinand Waititu was the first elected official to be impeached in Kenyan history. He did not resign or fall sick; he was removed from office by the Senate. Waititu was impeached due to the pending corruption charges and claims of his abuse of office.

Seeing how Waititu was dishonorably running out of the office and humiliated on the media, that situation got me thinking. What if a governor is good and not bad? What would happen to him? Will he be rewarded for his good performance, or does the system only punish those who do badly? I mean what if another governor used his office well and was never linked to any corruption cases, would the Senate reward him/her?

From what I understand, is that if the system can punish people for performing badly, then it should also reward those who do well. It goes both ways.

Now, Waititu’s five-year term as governor was terminated when he was removed from office. He had only served two years, and three years of service were robbed from him.

I am suggesting that if a governor does the opposite of what Waititu did, then the Senate should reward him/her. There should be a hearing opposite to an impeachment motion. We can call it a commendation or recognition hearing. And in this commendation hearing, I’m not talking giving the good-performing governors a fancy gold or silver medal; I’m talking about a real reward, a reward of 2 to 3 years in office without an election. I mean, his term of five years should be extended by that number of years.

I’m saying this because every time someone is elected as a governor, they will be seeing how they can be impeached, not how they can be commended. The system will be setting up governors for failure, not for success. The idea may sound crazy, but it is logical. Think about it, people.