The Oluwo of Iwo, Oba Abdulrosheed Adewale Akanbi, has challenged the authority of Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, over his status as a traditional ruler, declaring that he answers only to God.
The monarch, in a video shared on X on Tuesday by @GEAfoloyan, described himself as a king rather than a traditional ruler, insisting that he was not under the control of any government.
“I am not a traditional ruler, I am a king. I’m not under any government and I answer to nobody but God,” the monarch said.
Akanbi also advised the Adeleke-led administration to adopt a more personal approach in communicating with him, saying the government should seek his enlightenment through direct engagement rather than official correspondence.
His remarks came days after the Osun State Government issued a cautionary letter to the monarch over alleged inflammatory statements capable of triggering religious and inter-town conflicts.
The letter, issued by the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs and signed by Wale Alliyu on behalf of the Permanent Secretary, directed the Oluwo to stop making remarks against people of other faiths and fellow traditional rulers.
The government also warned that it would monitor his compliance with the directives, while the Osun State Council of Obas was asked to keep watch on developments in Iwo.
The controversy is linked to the monarch’s longstanding criticism of traditional religious practices in Yorubaland.
Akanbi has repeatedly questioned the practice of keeping deities in royal palaces, traditional rites associated with the installation of monarchs and the cultural significance attached to ancient crowns.
His comments have drawn criticism from adherents of traditional religions and some fellow monarchs.
Meanwhile, the warning letter has also triggered legal action, with the Tawunu Human Rights Initiative filing a suit against the Osun State Government at the Federal High Court in Osogbo.
The group is seeking to protect the monarch’s constitutional rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression, arguing that the government’s action amounts to an infringement of those rights.
