A Sewer Without Answers: What Role Did the Trade Unions Play in the Disputed Buzovna Project?

The construction of a sewer line serving properties controlled by the Azerbaijan Trade Unions Confederation has developed from a local infrastructure project into a story of opacity, damaged roads, environmental risks and the prolonged disregard of information requests.

Materials gathered by Turan indicate that the initiative and effective commissioning of the project came from Kurort Closed Joint-Stock Company, which operates under the Trade Unions Confederation. Yet the organisation has still not disclosed the complete set of documents that would establish the legality of the line’s design, financing, approval and construction.

Without those documents, it is impossible to determine conclusively on what grounds the work began, who supervised its quality and who must accept responsibility for its consequences.

A sewer for institutional properties

Construction began in September 2023. The approximately 2.4-kilometre pipeline was laid from the main sewer collector near boarding school No. 13 towards the Khazar sanatorium and the Sheki recreation centre, both situated near the Ali Ayaghi shrine and mosque.

Both properties belong to the Kurort company system. The principal beneficiaries of the project were therefore expected to be the sanatorium and recreation facilities controlled by the trade unions.

The Trade Unions Confederation said Kurort had applied to AzerSu Open Joint-Stock Company for technical specifications, that the project had been prepared by the SuKanal Research Institute and that the construction contract had been awarded to Repeir VS Construction Limited Liability Company.

According to the Confederation, the project was also approved by the Territorial Construction and Planning Centre of the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture.

However, the public has not been given copies of the technical specifications, approved design, contractor agreement, permits or acceptance certificates. The cost of construction, source of financing and procedure used to select the contractor have also not been disclosed.

These circumstances were examined in greater detail in Turan’s investigation, “Corruption Sewerage”.

Three dates for one project

The contradictions in official explanations about the project’s approval date have generated particularly serious doubts.

Three dates have been cited at different times:

• 2019, when the initial technical specifications were reportedly obtained;
• 4 October 2022, the approval date cited by Kurort director general Chingiz Huseynov;
• early 2024, when the technical specifications were reportedly extended and the project possibly reapproved after Turan began its investigation.

Construction, meanwhile, began in September 2023.

If the required documents were not formalised until 2024, the work may have continued for several months without a valid approved design. If all permits existed earlier, the Trade Unions Confederation could dispel the doubts simply by publishing them.

It has not done so.

A 2.4-kilometre underground utility line cannot be installed unnoticed. Roads must be excavated, earthworks undertaken, heavy machinery deployed and a connection made to the main network. Every stage should leave a documentary record: permits, route plans, inspection reports and commitments to restore the affected land.

In Buzovna, the pipe exists, but its complete documentary history remains unknown.

A project unseen by local and environmental authorities

The Khazar District Executive Authority previously said the sewer project had not been coordinated with the local administration.

The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources also said the relevant bodies had not applied to the State Environmental Expertise Agency for an environmental review. The agency learned of the construction from Turan’s appeal.

The following therefore remain unsupported by publicly available documentation:

• approval of the route by the local executive authority;
• a permit to carry out construction;
• completion of an environmental assessment;
• inter-agency coordination;
• organisation of technical supervision;
• completion of testing;
• issuance of acceptance certificates;
• legality of connecting the institutional properties to the main sewer network.

These circumstances provide grounds to speak of indications of unlawful construction. A definitive legal assessment, however, must be made by the authorised state oversight bodies, prosecutors or the courts.

The central question remains: how could an approximately 2.4-kilometre sewer line have been built without coordination with the district executive authority or an application for environmental review?

There are two possible explanations. Either the responsible authorities did not know about the extensive construction, or they knew but failed to intervene. Both possibilities point to a serious failure of state oversight.

Residents felt the consequences

Problems began to emerge while construction was still under way.

Sewage overflows were reported at the point where the new line joined the main network. During rainfall, wastewater surfaced, damaged the asphalt and spread along Lermontov and Akhundov streets.

The ground subsided along the route, while the road surface deteriorated and holes and depressions appeared. The road was either not repaired at all or the work was limited to temporary, poor-quality patches.

Residents faced a persistent sewage smell, worsening sanitary conditions and the threat of further accidents.

The terrain creates an additional risk. The Khazar sanatorium and Sheki recreation centre are situated below the level of the main collector, meaning the wastewater must be pumped.

Equipment failure, electricity outages, blocked pipes or an incorrectly calculated capacity could cause sewage to flow backwards and spill on to the streets.

As noted in “Buzovna Awaits Answers”, the consequences of the construction were not fully remedied: the road surface continued to deteriorate and the number of depressions increased.

A dedicated line amid a public crisis

The case assumes particular significance when viewed against Buzovna’s wider condition.

For years the settlement has struggled with the absence of a comprehensive sewer system, rising groundwater, flooding, damaged roads and pollution of the coastal area. Yet a dedicated line was installed primarily to serve properties controlled by the trade unions.

Institutional infrastructure was therefore routed through a residential area while the population’s fundamental utility problems remained unresolved. The consequences of the project — damaged roads, ground subsidence and sanitary risks — were also left to residents.

One symbol of the wider deterioration was a rusted rubbish container described by Turan as being used as an improvised element of municipal infrastructure. It illustrated the substitution of a proper engineering solution with a temporary structure and the absence of systematic oversight. It was examined in “A Monument to Corruption: A Rusty Rubbish Bin in Buzovna Exposes Azerbaijan’s Systemic Failures”.

The trade unions declined to disclose the documents

Turan repeatedly submitted information requests to the Trade Unions Confederation. The agency sought information about the client, purpose and cost of the project, its financing, technical specifications, route, contractor, procurement procedure, permits, environmental opinion and acceptance certificates.

The Confederation did not provide comprehensive answers or supporting documents.

In a letter dated 16 February 2024, the organisation said it was not required to answer information requests from public associations and political parties. The request, however, had come from a media outlet, not a political party or civic organisation.

Moreover, it did not concern the trade unions’ internal affairs. The sewer line had been laid beneath public roads, connected to a municipal network and could affect the sanitary and environmental safety of a residential area.

Article 9.1.2 of Azerbaijan’s Law on Access to Information also imposes relevant obligations on bodies performing public functions or managing resources of public importance. The claim that there was no obligation to answer therefore requires a separate legal assessment.

The silence continued in 2026

On 4 April 2026, an appeal concerning Buzovna’s problems was sent to the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, the State Water Resources Agency, the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture, the Trade Unions Confederation and the Khazar District Executive Authority.

One of its main subjects was the legality of the sewer line commissioned by the trade union body.

Even after the renewed appeal, the Trade Unions Confederation did not explain:

• which document authorised it to commission the construction;
• precisely when the project was approved;
• who financed the work;
• how much it cost;
• how the contractor was chosen;
• whether a competitive procurement procedure was held;
• who carried out technical supervision;
• who accepted the completed facility;
• who is responsible for the damaged roads and sewage overflows.

The client’s silence obstructs public scrutiny and reinforces suspicions that established procedures may have been circumvented.

Where the corruption risk begins

A failure to answer does not by itself prove embezzlement or an illicit payment. But refusing to disclose financial, procurement and permitting documents prevents any proper examination of the project’s legality.

Article 9.3.8 of Azerbaijan’s Law on Combating Corruption treats the unjustified refusal, delay, incomplete disclosure or distortion of information required by law as an offence creating conditions for corruption.

In the Buzovna case, it remains unclear:

• how much the line cost;
• which funds financed it;
• how the contractor was selected;
• whether the actual work corresponded to the amount paid;
• whether the necessary approvals existed before construction began;
• which officials supervised the project.

The answers should be found in estimates, contracts, bank transfers, procurement records, certificates of completed work and correspondence among Kurort, the Trade Unions Confederation, the contractor and state authorities.

As long as those documents remain concealed, it is impossible to distinguish administrative incompetence from a possible corrupt interest.

A client cannot disappear after construction

As the body overseeing the presumed client, the Trade Unions Confederation cannot transfer all responsibility to the contractor or state agencies.

A client must ensure that an approved design exists, permits are obtained, the contractor is selected lawfully, technical and design supervision is conducted, the work is safe and the damaged territory is restored.

Entrusting the construction to a private company does not release the client from responsibility for selecting the contractor or for the outcome.

If the line was indeed commissioned by Kurort, that company and the Trade Unions Confederation must present the documents and explain how legality, safety and construction quality were ensured.

The investigation must begin with the documents

Establishing the truth requires publication of the approved design, technical specifications, permits, environmental opinion, cost estimate, contractor agreement, procurement records and acceptance certificates.

An independent inspection should examine the pipeline, pumping equipment and connection to the main network, as well as the condition of the soil and road surface. Water samples should be taken at potential accident and discharge points and along the coastal area.

A separate inquiry should establish the damage caused to the roads and identify officials who permitted the work without the required approvals or failed to stop it.

If the financial records reveal irregularities, the materials should be sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office and other competent authorities.

A pipeline as a model of unaccountability

The Buzovna sewer has become more than a municipal problem. It shows how an infrastructure project serving institutional interests can be routed through public space while responsibility for its consequences dissolves among the client, contractor and state authorities.

When a line had to be built to the sanatorium and recreation centre, there was a client, a designer and a contractor. When ground collapses, foul smells and questions about legality appeared, responsibility was divided among numerous organisations.

Residents were left with a damaged road and environmental risks, while the public received contradictory dates and incomplete answers.

The Trade Unions Confederation could remove much of the suspicion by publishing the documents. Until it does, its silence will remain part of the problem.

The approximately 2.4-kilometre pipe in Buzovna now serves a purpose beyond carrying wastewater. It has become a measure of how far opacity can extend when the client does not account for its decisions, oversight bodies distance themselves and residents are left with the consequences.