In a recent securities filing, the company disclosed that it had reached an agreement in principle with the SEC, signaling an end to the civil side of a three-year-old Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation. Under the finalized agreement, the company would pay $11.4 million in civil penalties and disgorged profits.

Tidewater, whose vessels service the oil industry, said that it has yet to reach an agreement with the Justice Department and that any deal would likely involve “charges and sanctions imposed by the DOJ.”

The company launched an internal investigation of its operations in Nigeria in 2007, spurred by the Justice Department’s investigation of freight forwarder Panalpina World Transport Ltd. and associated oil and gas companies.

The internal investigation, conducted by Steptoe & Johnson LLP, eventually broadened to include Tidewater’s business in West Africa, Indonesia, Egypt and Azerbaijan.

In a 2008 SEC filing, the company described Steptoe’s findings:

The investigation initially focused on the procurement, through the use of a third party agent, of temporary importation permits for its vessels operating in Nigeria, but thereafter expanded to review certain aspects of operations in Nigeria, Angola and certain other countries in West Africa, Indonesia, Egypt and Azerbaijan. The investigation in certain of these additional areas of operations focused on customs, immigration and marketing practices, as well as measures taken by the company or related parties in certain of these jurisdictions to obtain local tax relief or abatement.

The SEC complaint would allege violations of the the FCPA’s anti-bribery and accounting provisions in connection with conduct involving tax authorities in Azerbaijan, according to a May 20 SEC filing. The complaint would allege violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions related to company payments to customs broker to procure permits necessary for the company’s vessels to operate in Nigeria.

Under the agreement, Tidewater would neither admit or deny the allegations in the complaint (MJ website).

“Karabakh, heart of Armenia, was inexplicably snatched from Armenia in a sinister stroke of the pen by Joseph Stalin and placed under the jurisdiction of Soviet Azerbaijan as an “autonomous province”: a game of political expediency by the newly established Soviet authorities in the early 1920s to gain favours from the newly emerging Turkey and extend Soviet inference among its Turkic neighbours.

Karabakh, which was 90% Armenian-populated, never ceased complaining to the Central authorities in Moscow and expressing dissatisfaction over Azeri treatment, and continued lobbying for realization of its aspirations to be part of the motherland, Armenia.

Hundreds of thousands Armenians demonstrated in 1988 urging the Kremlin for action and the return of Karabakh to its rightful owner, Armenia. In response, the slaughter of Armenians was unleashed in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, and continued for a week before Soviet troops were brought in to end the violence. Baku was emptied of its 250.000 Armenians, an industrious and loyal minority. Similar massacres of cleansing were organized in the Azeri cities of Sumgait and Kirovabad and later in the Shahumian district of Karabakh. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, fighting erupted all over Karabakh. It was a superhuman struggle of life and death for Armenians again in the belief that force cannot constitute the basis of rights.

As the fighting continued, the Azeris started creating myths in order to rationalize their defeat. The most sordid of these fictitious scenarios was one about Khojalu.

Eighteen years have passed since the alleged February 26 Khojalu massacres. Today, Baku tries to use those events to conceal the pogroms that took place in Sumgait during February 1988 and other cities thereafter,” the article stated.

The Sumgait pogroms (also known as the Sumgait Massacre or February Events) was an Azeri-led pogroms of the Armenian population of Azerbaijani Sumgait from 26 to 29 February 1988. On February 27, 1988, large mobs made up of Azeris formed into groups that went on to attack and killed Armenians both on the streets and in their apartments. Sumgait pogroms lasted three days and were accompanied by widespread violence, looting and murder. Sumgait events signaled the beginning of another unprecedented wave of anti-Armenian persecutions and violence in Azerbaijan, a new genocide. The victims of this of anti-Armenian persecutions and violence were Armenians of Kirovabad, Kazakhs, Khanlar, Dashkesan, Mingechaur, Baku and other towns and villages of Azerbaijan. This has led to floods of refugees from Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia.

Fulfilling a vital goal for the Karabakh people, the units of the NKR self-defense forces, attacking Khojaly, provided a corridor for the civilians’ safe leaving the military activities zone, about which the Azerbaijani party was informed beforehand. This fact was repeatedly confirmed by the Azerbaijani officials, in particular, the then President Ayaz Mutalibov. But, the Azerbaijani authorities made nothing for the peaceful population’s withdrawal from the military activities area. Moreover, a column of civilians was shot down at the approaches to the Aghdam region’s border, which was later confirmed by Mutalibov, connecting this criminal act with the opposition’s attempts to remove him from his position, making him responsible for the events.

The territory, where pictures of numerous corpses were made, is in a three-kilometer distance from the town of Aghdam and in 11 kilometers from Khojaly. Up to the summer of 1993, this territory was under permanent control of the Azerbaijani armed forces, which excluded any access for the units of the Karabakh self-defense forces.

«The Azerbaijani official propaganda tries to blame Armenians for the killing of the civil population of Khojaly, but even Azerbaijani President Mutalibov admitted that “Armenians still provided a corridor for the civilians’ leaving the place», the Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta from April 2, 1992 wrote. Also, Ogonyok journal (#14-15, 1992) noted that «…the attack of Khojaly wasn’t sudden».

Some details of that military operation are still shrouded in mystery, which is actively speculated by the Azerbaijani state propagandistic machine, using various falsifications, forgeries, and obvious lie. Last year, the NKR MFA drew the public attention to the false photo placed at some Azerbaijani websites, including the one of a generator of false ideas – The Heydar Aliyev Fund (www.azerbaijan.az). In fact, the photo related immediately to the events in Kosovo and just as such, along with numerous others, was introduced at the Serbian, Albanian, and one of the specialized German forums, at the site of The New York Times authoritative journal, and others. This year, new forgeries have been added to the noted one. Thus, about 20 false photos used by the Azerbaijani party, in particular, those of the victims of the Kurdish pogroms in Turkey, the victims of the massacre in Srebrennitsa, and others, were introduced during the February 24 presentation of the www.xocali.net project in Yerevan. Besides, outrageous falsifications were discovered in the lists of the Aghdam tragedy victims introduced by the Azerbaijani official structures – embassies, the presidential library, etc. Also, the site provides video-films about the interrogations of the Turks-Meskhetians, which testify that despite the Armenian party’s warning of the Khojaly attack, the Azerbaijani servicemen banned the escape of the Turks-Meskhetians’ families, which were artificially settled there by the Azerbaijani authorities.

The Azerbaijani propaganda tries to introduce the betrayal of the Khojaly civilians by their high-rank compatriots as the Armenians’ revenge for the bloody orgy in Sumgait.

But, the remarks and assessments of the Khojaly events by some Azerbaijani top officials, human rights activists, and journalists refute flatly the false thesis of official Baku. Thus, Azerbaijani human rights activist Arif Yunusov wrote: «The town and its citizens were deliberately made victims of the political goal – to prevent the Azerbaijani Popular Front’s coming to power” (Azerbaijani Zerkalo newspaper, July 1992).

Tamerlan Karayev, in due time Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijani Republic (now AR Ambassador to India), testified: «The tragedy was implemented by the Azerbaijani authorities», specifically «some of the top officials» (Mukhalifat Azerbaijani newspaper, April 28, 1992).

Heydar Aliyev admitted himself that «the former leadership of Azerbaijan is also guilty” of the Khojaly events. According to Bilik-Dunyasi Agency, still in April 1992 he expressed a cynically monstrous idea: “The bloodshed will do good to us. We shouldn’t interfere in the course of the events». Did the «father» of Azerbaijan bear the responsibility for these words?

Czech journalist Yana Mazalova who, by the Azerbaijanis’ oversight, found herself in both groups of the mass media representatives, which were shown the «corpses defiled by Armenians», noted a sufficient difference in the latters’ condition. Visiting the field immediately after the events, Mazalova didn’t see any traces of barbarity on the corpses. And two days later, the journalists were shown the disfigured bodies already «prepared» for filming.

The Russian Megalopolis-Express newspaper wrote: «We cannot but admit that if the Azerbaijani Popular Front had really far-reaching goals, so it has achieved them. Mutalibov is compromised and dismissed, the international community is shocked, the Azerbaijanis and the friendly Turks believed in the so-called «genocide of the Azerbaijani population in Khojaly».

As it is known, still on February 26, 47 Armenian hostages were kept in Khojaly, which is deliberately concealed by the Azerbaijani mass media. After liberating Khojaly, there were only 13 of them (among them 6 women and a child), while the rest 34 were taken away in an unknown direction by the Azerbaijanis. So far, there is no information about there further fate. We only know that they were taken away from the village in the operation night, but they didn’t enter Aghdam.

It is evident that those who wanted to make a semblance of the corpses’ defilement by Armenians disfigured, first of all, the bodies of the Armenian hostages in order that they couldn’t be identified. Just for this purpose, the majority of the corpses were undressed, and just for this purpose, the victims’ bodies were exposed to outrages, which changed them out of all recognition.

Proceeding from the abovementioned facts, we can confidently state that the Azerbaijani party is guilty of the death of the civilians of Khojaly and the Armenian hostages kept there, and that the Azerbaijani party committed a monstrous crime against its own people for the sake of its political intrigues and struggle for power.

It is already obvious for everybody that the «genocide» of Azerbaijanis in Khojaly is a myth created still by Heydar Aliyev and taken up by his throne-successor Aliyev-the-junior in order to draw the international community’s attention away from the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, and many other populated-by-Armenians settlements, as well as to conceal the political, humanitarian, military, economic, and other penal offences of the Azerbaijani leadership against Armenian civilians and against its own people.

Due to the last changes in 2009 in the Law on “Freedom of Religion” of the Azerbaijan Republic (AR) all religious communities are required to reregister their communities in the State Committee for Religious Affairs of AR.
In the process of preparing and submitting documents for re-registration community in accordance with the new Act, we, together with the chairman of the Sunni community of “Lezgi Mosque”, appealed to the Committee on Religious Affairs, that sent us to the Office of Caucasus Muslims. Religious official viewed all papers and agreed with them, but for some reason sent us to get a conclusion(that is not specified in the Act) from some Ghazi Hikmet that was in the “Bibiheybet ” Mosque. In 08.12.2009 , being forced to contact to Hikmet(who is Shia(shiit)) , we got an answer from him:::”Go and change the name of the Mosque on the Ashurbek Mosque, because there wasn’t any Lezgins in “Ichery-Sheher”(Inner City) ever …While(unless) you rename it, you can not come.”.So, he did not take into account that there are no mentions of the fact that we have set the name of our Mosque(it’s the historical name) and if it is necessary, it must be done by civil servants.
So, received purely formal rejection, we realized that against our “Lezgian Mosque” and our Community, as well as other Sunni Communities, prepared the real and specific baiting in order to remove the historical name of the Mosque and to drive our community, that is considered to be closed completely, or, instead it intends to introduce there though small in number, but the Shiite community.So, (in this letter)we officially notified Sheyulislama Allahshukur Pashazade about this situation and we asked him to take actions, but, alas, we haven’t received any reply or reaction to the letter.

(Now) similar actions are taken against Sunni Mosque “Abu Bakr” and other Sunni Communities in the suburbs of Gobustan, Alyats and in Mushfigabade, more than that such Mosques as “Abu Bakr” and “Shahidlyar” are closed.
Although, whole package of claimed documents (our docs) was submitted to the Office of Caucasus Muslims intime, so, we were explained that if our Community will not be officially reregistrated till the end of December of 2009 – then, thanks to the acts of Ghazi Hikmet, our Community will be illegial since 2010 !!!!!

There is too little time to left, more than that, appropriate bodies(despite the tension) are doing nothing, so there is probability, that provocations and discrimination will influence the Sunni Community in the worst way and will entail serious consequences.

The Sunni Community of “Lezgian Mosque” ,

Azerbaijan skillfully used this human psyche property, exposing for the public display more and more “documentary evidences” of the Khojaly tragedy. All reasons and arguments faded against this “universal weeping with illustrations”. Khojaly gradually transformed into the common word, overshadowing many other real tragedies of our time.

“Khojaly” initially pursued the idea of hate increase towards the Armenians in the younger generation of Azerbaijanis. It was the cynical calculation, which continues to this day. In schools, universities, and Youth Theatres told about victims among civilians population of the village, shown photos and videos. The psyche of Azerbaijanis traumatize, number of murders and suicides increases; however, it doesn’t stop apologists of the devouring hatred. Then Azerbaijan’s tested monstrous lie left to the international arena.

At the same time Azerbaijan studiously avoids delicate moments of this tragedy, the questions that required to be answered. List them again.

1. Why Azerbaijan stubbornly ignores reasons of the village assault by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s armed divisions?

2. Why Azerbaijan doesn’t mention the existence of the safe corridor for civilians from the combat zone?

3. Why Azerbaijan doesn’t present number of killed in the village itself? There were only 11 people.

4. Who sent escaping Khojaly people in the Armenian village Nakhchivanik, reporting by the radio, that village was allegedly captured by Azeris and there they can get help? In the clash with the Nakhchivanik’s defensive fort post Azerbaijan side lost up to two dozen people, mostly civilians.

5. Why there is a silence about the fact that the territory, where were found hundreds of Khojaly’s civilians dead bodies was under Azerbaijan’s control? Until the summer of 1993.

6. Why there is a silence about the fact that this territory was actually located within the Agdam’s limits, big city populated by Azeris until the 1993?

7. What is Azerbaijan’s purpose to be silent on the well-known fact that 34 thousand of heavily armed Azeris were in Agdam on February 1992?

8. Why the Armenian troops, if they really wanted to kill Khojaly people released village civilians from the fire bag?

9. How could happen, that the news of the mass loss of Khojaly’s population spread across Baku few hours before the village assault by Armenian divisions?

10. Who and why outraged upon dead bodies of Khojaly people, if known that they were within the territory controlled by Azerbaijani military?

Honest and sincere answer to these questions can ruin the entire pyramid of dirty lie and insinuations, lovingly built by the Azerbaijani propaganda. However, our questions are not over yet.

Azerbaijan operators made videos of Khojaly’s killed bodies several days in a row. In particular, the posthumous fame received Azerbaijani journalist Chingiz Fuat-oglu (Mustafaev), whose footage became the most important “argument” to accuse Armenians, he made videos on 28th February and, second time, on 2nd March of 1992. Both times in the frame Azerbaijani militaries and civilians. However, during the second shooting on March 2 clearly evident that some bodies positions are changed, and some of them subjected to mockery of vandals. Who could do that, if the territory was controlled by the armed forces of Azerbaijan Republic?

This question is not rhetoric, as it may seem at first glance. According to Azerbaijani propaganda it turned out that Armenians let Khojaly people leave in order to kill them (in front of 34 thousand armed Azerbaijanis) in Agdam’s suburbs. After this crime Armenians retreated, leaving the field strewn with corpses to Azerbaijani operators to re-risk their lives after that by breaking into the territory only in order to desecrate the corpses of civilians. Azerbaijan replicates this nonsense already during 18 years in the countless petitions, speeches, articles, books, films and scientific works.

I am convinced that any reasonable person, who faced with aggressive, deceitful propaganda of Khojaly “genocide”, would certainly pay attention to the listed inconsistencies. However, people’s reason was overshadowed by video- and photo documents. Terrible and pitiless.

Some of the young Armenian patriots and enthusiasts undertook to refute this “argument” of Azerbaijan Republic. As a result, after long and persistent search they found a considerable number of facts, fully exposing the sinister role of Azerbaijan in the death of Khojaly people and ensuing bodies desecration. Even today, I can’t unequivocally say that the Azerbaijani servicemen intentionally killed Khojaly people. However, with the complete confidence we can assert that the desecration of bodies made Azerbaijani side: first to conceal wittingly or unwittingly crime and blame the Armenians, and then turning their own crime in the instrument of anti-Armenian propaganda.

On the created by the abovementioned enthusiasts site http://xocali.net/ are collected numerous videos and photos refuting the vile anti-Armenian lies. The site materials clearly show what has been repeatedly written and said: the corpses of Azeri refugees from Khojaly were desecrated by Azeris. At the same time Azerbaijan didn’t distain outright forgery: revealing pictures of other tragedies, including photos of corpses. The hard and laborious work of the site creators turned into success, demystifying the enemy propaganda. I am convinced that Armenian diplomacy should use the site http://xocali.net/ materials in their daily activities.

I am certain also that demystifying of monstrous anti-Armenian lies must be continued. Continuing the search of refutation outside Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, it is necessary to apply to people, who participated in the successful operations of NKR’s release and suppressions of weapon emplacements in Khojaly. Every memory, every detail is important because it could shed light on the monstrous crime committed by Azerbaijan to destroy their own tribesmen.

Azerbaijan that turns every 26th February almost in the mourning holiday, with fanfares and fireworks, must be nailed to a pillar of shame. Masks must be disrupted from killers. Fireworks in the honor of Khojaly‘s people “genocide” must be black, it would adequately reflect the black essence of ideologists, organizers and executors of this crime.

P.S. Article was ready to the publication, when Azerbaijan’s newspaper “Zerkalo” reported the interesting news. According to newspaper, “Turan” news agency in Baku reported the launch of new website http://xocali.net/. Immediately after this “Turan” agency became to expose Azerbaijani propaganda: “However the official Azerbaijani propaganda and the state controlled media overdid and allowed serious mistakes and frauds. Thus, exposing Armenians, some of our electronic media were so overzealous that borrowed photographs from Turkey, Palestine and other regions, presenting this as an evidence of Armenian crimes in Khojaly”. I am sure that such recognitions in “overdoing” became the direct result of Xocali.net staff’ hard work and it will continue.

UN Permanent Representative to the UN Karen Nazaryan addressed a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the occasion of the anniversary of the tragic events, the massacre of the Armenians in Sumgayit and Baku. Referring to the cheep propaganda and false facts presented by Azerbaijan, Karen Nazaryan wrote: “Azerbaijan continues presenting itself as a victim of so-called “Armenian aggression,” distorting the tragic events known to the whole world.”

According to Armenian MFA, Ambassador Nazaryan, in particular, recalls the interview of Azerbaijan’s ex-President Ayaz Mutalibov, where he describes how the Azerbaijani opposition and militia were trying to prevent the evacuation of civilians form the zone of military actions through a mountain corridor. The opposition hoped to come to power via the slaughter of its own compatriots.

The letter underlines that the international community has confirmed the atrocities of the Azerbaijani government against the unprotected Armenian population. “In response to the peaceful and constitutional demand of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to realize their right for self-determination, the Azerbaijani authorities armed the mob, which perpetrated a massacre of the Armenians in Sumgayit in 1988. This was the first case of mass killing on the territory of the Soviet Union. Immediately after Azerbaijan gained independence, the murderers were set free and proclaimed national heroes.”

“It should finally become clear that Azerbaijan launched military aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia is confident that the best solution in this situation is to restore the legal demand of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to realize the right of peoples to self-determination,” the Armenian Ambassador concludes.”

Armenian Defense Ministry says, the Azerbaijani recurrent propaganda film is built on obvious lie, full of false information and distorted facts. The citations from Zori Balayan’s book are outrageous lie. The author himself announced this months ago, stating he has written nothing of the kind.

“The film” says the residents having escaped from Khojalou were fired near the Armenian village of Nakhijevanik. This fact also has nothing to do with the reality, since the abovementioned village of Nakhijevanik, situated close to Aghdam, was not under control of the Armenian military forces in February, 1992.

The film ends with a touching, heartbreaking music and the photos of the so-called “victims and the survivors.” After browsing for no longer than 1-2 minutes, one of the photos appears to illustrate an Armenian injured child (the photo was issued in “Komsomolets Kuzbasa” December 5, 1991 and the article is headlined as “A Long Way to Erkech” («Долгая дорога в Эркеч»). The online version of the article is available in http://www.press.karabakh.info .

We can do nothing but advise the Azerbaijani propaganda machine to be more attentive and make falsifications that would be not so vivid or would prove hard to reveal.

Funded by a little-known oligarch, it was Mr Blair’s first visit and will inevitably raise questions about his business links.

Although their trips were unconnected, The Mail on Sunday understands Prince Andrew, who has been to Azerbaijan seven times in five years and is close to its hardline president Ilham Aliyev, passed on his knowledge of the country to the former Prime Minister.

Words of praise: Tony Blair and multi-millionaire Nasib Piriyev in Baku last week

On this occasion, Andrew was on a private three-day visit ‘with an element of work’, but has previously established a wealth of contacts while promoting British business interests in his special envoy role.

It is thought Mr Blair received around £90,000 for visiting Azerbaijan’s methanol company, AzMeCo, which is owned by Nizami Piriyev, a multi-millionaire with business links to Afghanistan, Syria and Iran.

After attending the signing of a loan agreement between AzMeCo and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Mr Blair made a speech, praising Mr Piriyev’s plans to build a new plant.

He said: ‘The thing you find when you are no longer in office is you have the chance to travel a little bit more than you did before. Azerbaijan is a place I have always wanted to visit.’

First Lady and Prince: Andrew chats to Mehriban Aliyev, the Azerbaijani president’s wife, in June

Recent elections in the Central Asian state were described as fraudulent and ‘seriously flawed’ while President Aliyev has been criticised for alleged human rights abuses.

AzMeCo said it hoped Mr Blair, who arrived and left Azerbaijan the same day, would continue to promote the firm ‘when he makes speeches around the world’.

The Piriyev family are one of the richest in Azerbaijan. Mr Piriyev, 51, ran a section of Russia’s state oil firm Gazprom, before setting up a company that won a contract worth £2billion to develop a petrochemical complex in Syria. In 2006, he returned to Azerbaijan, where he was born, to set up AzMeCo.

Mr Blair’s office confirmed the visit was arranged by his US agent, who is thought to have charged AzMeCo directly.

Mr Piriyev’s son Nasib, AzMeCo’s vice-president, said Mr Blair met Andrew at the Park Hyatt hotel in the capital Baku. ‘Andrew was telling him all about Azerbaijan,’ he said.

Mr Blair’s business interests have come under scrutiny in recent months. He has earned an estimated £14 million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007, but no longer has to disclose the sources of his income.

Prince Andrew’s office said he funded his latest visit himself and met the chairman of an Azerbaijani bank, a leading businessman and visited a carpet manufacturer.

Rumours are rife in Baku that he is interested in investing in a golf complex being built near the Caspian Sea. However, Buckingham Palace said yesterday that he had ‘no business interests in Azerbaijan’.

In June The Mail on Sunday revealed how the Prince squandered £60,000 of public money by chartering a luxury private jet for another three-day trip to Azerbaijan.

On that occasion he was promoting British business in his unpaid capacity as special envoy. Andrew has grown increasingly close to President Aliyev, 48. He is also said to be friendly with his wife Mehriban and daughters Leyla and Arzu.

He did not meet anyone from AzMeCo and Mr Blair’s spokesman said it was ‘a coincidence they were in Baku at the same time’.

Describing the background to Mr Blair’s visit, Nasib Piriyev said: ‘He came at our invitation and gave us so much advice. We are proud he is interested in the project.’ He said AzMeCo ‘covered his expenses’.

Mr Blair’s spokesman said: ‘He was in Baku for a speech, organised by the Washington Speakers Bureau [his agents] in the usual way. This was a one-off speaking engagement. Tony Blair has no commercial relationship with AzMeCo.’

President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan will now change the constitution of his Caspian Sea state enabling him to stand as many times as he likes as ruler.

The vote was boycotted by opposition groups who claim he stifles free speech and rigs elections while wishing to turn his country into royal-like fiefdom in which his family is always in power.

Aliyev – once seen as a playboy with a reputation for gambling and women – inherited the presidency from his father Heydar who was Communist boss in Azerbaijan before the collapse of the USSR, and there is speculation he intends eventually to pass his ‘throne’ to his son, now 11.

Dictator: President Ilham Aliyev casts his vote in a referendum which will allow him to stand as many times as ruler

The Duke of York made two ‘private’ trips to Azerbaijan last year, and also visited capital Baku in May 2005, June 2006, and October 2007, a surprisingly high number of trips by a royal to any country.

In all cases he was received by 48-year-old President Ilham Aliyev, whose state controlled media are ordered to refer to the prince as ‘the dear guest’ in articles and broadcasts.

The prince also met Aliyev in Switzerland in January at the World Economic Forum.   Despite his friendship with the prince, the same month Aliyev blocked BBC broadcasts on FM frequencies to his authoritarian state.

Aliyev’s plan to lift the limit on the number of times a president can stand for re-election was won by more than 91 per cent of the vote, according to an almost complete tally released yesterday.

Pals: Prince Andrew is said to enjoy a close friendship with the President

The Council of Europe this week warned that Azerbaijan could be expelled due to the constitutional amendment.

‘We are speaking here on democracy and the rule of law. We believe that if there is no limit, the fact is that a president can turn into a dictator,’ said Ian Miscallef, a senior council official.

The decision violated pledges made by Azerbaijan in 2002, he said.

Many opposition politicians and foreign observers believe Aliyev turned into a dictator long before this vote.

Opposition leader Isa Qambar said: ‘The referendum was designed to prolong the Aliyev family’s hold on power – but will eventually shorten it. We are representatives of a civic movement that will continue to struggle in this direction.

‘I am sure that this fight will end with the victory of Azerbaijani people.’

An editor, speaking about the prince’s regular visits to Azerbaijan, said: ‘We are not allowed to know why he is coming.

‘We can’t ask what is the purpose of his private visit, who is he working with here, and what are the companies he builds any co-operation with, if any.

‘We can see he is a friend of the president, but apart from that its all very murky.’