The Yoruba traditional institution is one of the most significant custodians of African civilisation, history, identity and cultural heritage. For generations, Yoruba kings have occupied positions that extend far beyond the authority to govern their respective domains. They are custodians of ancestral traditions, symbols of communal identity and representatives of a civilisation whose influence stretches across generations and continents. Unfortunately, there is growing cause for concern over the conduct of some occupants of these revered thrones, whose public activities and controversies are increasingly raising questions about their understanding of the responsibilities attached to traditional authority.
A Yoruba king is not simply an individual who wears a crown, occupies a palace and enjoys the privileges associated with royalty. The throne represents a historical institution that existed before the present occupant and will continue long after his departure. It carries the sacrifices, beliefs, customs, achievements and collective memories of generations. The crown is therefore not a personal trophy. It is a symbol of an entire people, and whoever wears it must understand that his conduct reflects on the heritage he has been entrusted to preserve.
Yet, what happens when those entrusted with protecting this heritage become the very individuals generating controversies that undermine public confidence in the traditional institution? What happens when royal authority becomes entangled in unnecessary public confrontations, religious disagreements, personal disputes and actions that attract government intervention or litigation? These are questions that deserve serious attention, particularly as the Yoruba race continues to confront the challenge of preserving its cultural identity in a rapidly changing society.
THE OLUWO CONTROVERSY: WHEN THE CROWN BECOMES A SUBJECT OF PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT
The recent controversies surrounding the Oluwo of Iwo, Oba Abdulrosheed Akanbi, provide a significant example of the concerns surrounding the conduct of some traditional rulers. The monarch has repeatedly made public statements criticising aspects of Yoruba traditional religious practices, including installation rites, ancestral customs and the presence of traditional deities in royal palaces. While every individual has the constitutional right to hold and express personal religious convictions, the position occupied by a traditional ruler comes with responsibilities that demand sensitivity, restraint and respect for the cultural diversity of the people he represents.
The controversy became significant enough for the Osun State Government to issue a formal caution to the monarch in November 2026. In a letter from the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, the government expressed concern that statements attributed to the Oluwo were capable of generating religious and communal tension. It directed him to refrain from attacking adherents of other faiths and fellow traditional rulers, while reminding him of his responsibility to preserve the cultural values and traditions represented by his throne. The government also indicated that his compliance would be monitored.
This was not an ordinary disagreement between individuals. It involved a recognised traditional institution, religious sensitivities and the potential consequences of public pronouncements in communities where people of different beliefs must coexist. A monarch occupies a position that requires him to exercise considerable restraint, particularly when addressing matters that could divide his subjects or create hostility between neighbouring communities.
The Oluwo is entitled to his personal beliefs, just as his subjects are entitled to theirs. However, the distinction between personal religious conviction and the responsibilities of traditional authority must never be ignored. A king cannot expect the privileges and respect attached to an ancestral institution while treating the cultural sensitivities associated with that same institution as matters of little consequence.
THE GRAVITY OF THE ALLEGED DESECRATION OF PAST KINGS’ RESTING PLACES
Perhaps even more troubling is the legal dispute involving the alleged exhumation of the remains of previous Oluwos from their traditional burial place within the palace. In May 2026, princes representing ruling houses in Iwo instituted a suit against Oba Akanbi at the Osun State High Court, challenging the alleged removal of the remains of past monarchs from Ileta, where they were traditionally buried in accordance with the customs of Iwo.
The claimants, representing the Ogunmakinde, Ande, Adegunodo and Alausa ruling houses, asked the court to declare the alleged exhumation unlawful and contrary to the customs and traditions of Iwo. They also sought several other reliefs, including an order declaring the monarch unqualified to continue occupying the throne. These are allegations and claims before the court, not findings of judicial guilt, and the matter must be determined through the appropriate legal process.
Nevertheless, the cultural implications of the allegations cannot be dismissed. Ancestral burial grounds are not ordinary pieces of land. They represent historical continuity, collective memory and the relationship between a community and those who occupied positions of authority before the present generation. In many Yoruba communities, the resting places of past monarchs carry considerable cultural and historical significance.
If the remains of previous kings were indeed removed without the necessary traditional authority, consultation or respect for established customs, the implications would extend beyond a disagreement between a reigning monarch and members of ruling houses. It would raise fundamental questions about the preservation of ancestral heritage and the limits of personal discretion when occupying an institution that belongs to generations of people.
A reigning monarch must understand that he is a temporary occupant of a permanent institution. The palace did not begin with him, and its history must not be treated as though it can be rewritten according to the preferences of whoever currently occupies the throne.
YORUBA CULTURE IS BIGGER THAN PERSONAL RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES
One of the most dangerous developments in conversations surrounding Yoruba identity is the attempt to reduce an extraordinarily rich civilisation to disagreements over religious beliefs. Yoruba culture encompasses language, traditional institutions, philosophy, music, festivals, naming systems, architecture, folklore, family structures, ancestral history and systems of communal organisation. It is not the exclusive property of any religious group or individual.
The Yoruba race has produced Muslims, Christians and adherents of traditional religion, all of whom remain part of its cultural and historical identity. Their religious differences do not erase their shared ancestry, language or heritage. A Yoruba person does not cease to be Yoruba because of his religious convictions, and no individual should be made to feel that embracing one faith requires abandoning the cultural identity inherited from previous generations.
This is why traditional rulers must exercise particular caution when making public pronouncements about religion and culture. They are expected to represent communities whose members do not necessarily share the same beliefs. A monarch who uses his public position in a manner that alienates sections of his own people risks undermining the very unity the throne is supposed to symbolise.
The argument is not that traditional rulers must surrender their personal religious convictions or refrain from expressing opinions. Rather, they must recognise that their public responsibilities require a level of maturity and cultural sensitivity beyond ordinary political or religious disagreements. Preserving Yoruba heritage does not require hostility towards Christianity, Islam or traditional religion. It requires protecting the freedom of people to maintain their beliefs while preserving the cultural institutions that connect them to their ancestry.
THE THRONE IS AN INSTITUTION, NOT A PERSONAL PLATFORM
The Oluwo controversy should also provoke a wider conversation about the responsibilities of traditional rulers across Yorubaland. There is a growing need to remind occupants of royal thrones that their positions are not platforms for personal publicity, endless confrontations or the pursuit of individual recognition. A monarch’s greatest contribution should be measured by the strength of the institution he leaves behind, the unity of his people, the preservation of their history and the respect he commands through responsible leadership.
The traditional institution must not become an arena where kings compete for public attention through provocative declarations, personal attacks or unnecessary confrontations with other monarchs. Disagreements between traditional rulers are not new, but the manner in which such disagreements are handled matters. The dignity of the throne demands that differences be addressed through established traditional channels, dialogue and the appropriate institutions rather than public exchanges that expose the institution to ridicule.
The Osun State Council of Obas and relevant traditional authorities also have a responsibility to uphold standards of conduct that protect the integrity of the institution. Traditional rulers must be reminded that their authority comes with obligations, and the privileges attached to their positions cannot be separated from the responsibility to preserve peace, respect established customs and protect communal heritage.
This responsibility becomes even more important at a time when younger generations are increasingly disconnected from their ancestral histories. If the people entrusted with preserving Yoruba traditions become embroiled in controversies that weaken confidence in their institutions, what exactly will the next generation inherit?
HISTORY WILL NOT REMEMBER THE CROWN ALONE
The Yoruba traditional institution has survived colonialism, political transformations, religious changes and generations of social development. Its endurance is evidence of the strength of a civilisation whose identity cannot be erased by changing circumstances. However, the survival of the institution must not be taken for granted. Its continued relevance depends significantly on the conduct, wisdom and sense of responsibility demonstrated by those who occupy its thrones.
A king must understand that the crown he wears is not an invitation to place personal preferences above collective heritage. He is a custodian, not the owner of the institution. He inherits a history that he is expected to protect, not an opportunity to diminish the significance of everything that existed before his reign.
The Oluwo’s controversies, including the Osun State Government’s caution and the allegations concerning the resting places of previous monarchs now before the court, should therefore serve as an occasion for broader reflection across Yorubaland. The legal questions must be resolved by the courts, while disagreements over religion and culture must be addressed through dialogue and respect for constitutional rights.
Ultimately, Yoruba kings must remember that the dignity of a throne is not measured by the noise surrounding its occupant, the frequency of his public declarations or the controversies attached to his name. It is measured by the respect he earns, the peace he preserves, the traditions he protects and the legacy he leaves behind.
A crown is inherited, but dignity must be earned. The Yoruba throne belongs to history, the people and generations yet unborn. No individual monarch should conduct himself as though he is greater than the institution that made him a king.