A D.C. man initially charged with armed carjacking, armed kidnapping, and armed robbery of a male victim he met and with whom he engaged in sex at D.C.’s Fort Dupont Park in September 2024 pleaded guilty on March 12 to two lesser charges as part of a plea bargain deal offered by prosecutors.

Records filed in D.C. Superior Court show that Da’Andre Pardlow, 31, who has been held in jail since the time of his arrest in December 2025, pleaded guilty to unarmed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Court records show the agreement includes a recommendation by prosecutors that Pardlow be sentenced to seven years in prison.

The agreement allows him to withdraw the guilty plea if the judge rejects the sentencing recommendation and calls for a harsher sentence. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Superior Court Judge Robert Salermo on May 29.

Details of the incident that led to Pardlow’s arrest and guilty plea are included in a 12-page arrest affidavit prepared by U.S. Park Police detective Christopher Edmund, the lead investigator in the case.

According to the affidavit, which is part of the public court records, Park Police received a call at approximately 6:30 a.m. on Sept. 13, 2024, regarding an armed robbery that occurred around 3 a.m. that day at D.C.’s Fort Dupont Park. The affidavit says Park Police officers drove the person who called, who is identified only as Victim 1 or V-1,  from his residence to the Park Police Anacostia Operations facility where he was interviewed.

“V-1 reported that they were at their residence at approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 13, 2024, and decided to drive to Fort Dupont Park in hopes of meeting a man for a sexual encounter,” the affidavit states. “V-1 arrived at Fort Dupont Park at approximately 3:00 a.m. and parked their vehicle on the south side of Alabama Avenue, SE, in Washington, D.C. adjacent to the park entrance,” the affidavit continues.  

It says the victim stated the park was empty and he decided to leave, but while walking back to his car he encountered a black male appearing in his 20s or 30s and gave a full description of the man’s appearance and clothing, saying he was wearing a ski mask. 

“V-1 and the male conversed and agreed to engage in consensual sexual acts on a bench under the pavilion near the restroom,” the affidavit says. It says V-1 then told detectives that the man, who is initially identified only as Suspect 1 or S-1, “had ejaculated onto V-1’s face. V-1 then used a napkin that he found on the ground nearby to wipe S-1’s semen from V-1’s face. V-1 then discarded the napkin on the ground.”   

The affidavit states that investigators later recovered the napkin and through DNA testing linked the semen to Pardlow. But prior to that, it says during their sexual encounter in the park V-1 agreed to suspect 1’s request that he take off all his clothes.

“When V-1 disrobed, S-1 got behind V-1 and held a hard, metal item that V-1 believed to be a handgun, to the back of V-1’s head,” according to the affidavit. It says V-1 added that S-1 “threatened to shoot him ‘over and over again’” if he did not comply with S-1’s demands to surrender his phone and wallet, provide the code to access the phone, and then to take possession of and drive V-1’s car to a nearby bank, with V-1 sitting in the passenger’s seat, to withdraw money from V-1’s bank account. The affidavit says he withdrew $500 from V-1’s account at a Bank of America ATM at 3821 Minnesotta Ave., NE.

“S-1 then drove V-1 back to the park and told them to get their clothes, which were still in the pavilion area,” the affidavit says. “When V-1 exited the vehicle, S-1 drove out of the park in V-1’s vehicle at a high rate of speed toward Massachusetts Avenue,” it says. “V-1 walked back to their residence and contacted the police.”

The affidavit says that over the course of the next several months investigators used tracking devices linked to V-1’s car, cell phone, and Apple Watch that Pardlow had taken to locate the car and a residence where Pardlow was possibly living.

The Park Police investigators also pulled up FBI DNA records to identify a suspect that matched the DNA sample taken from the napkin V1 used at the park to a man arrested in Prince George’s County, Md., on an unrelated charge of Use of a Firearm In A Violent Felony. That person turned out to be Da’Andre Pardlow, the affidavit states.

It says investigators obtained additional evidence linking Pardlow to the park incident involving V-1, including video images of his face from a Bank of America security camera at the time he withdraws money from V-1’s ATM account. A tracking of Pardlow’s own mobile phone also placed him at the site of the park at the time of his alleged interaction with V-1.

When Park Police detectives first interviewed Pardlow at the Eastern Correctional Institute prison in Westover, Md., where he was being held in connection with the unrelated firearm arrest, “he denied having ever been to Fort Dupont Park since he was in high school and said that he had no involvement in this incident,” the affidavit says.

Court records show a warrant was obtained for his arrest on Nov. 25, 2025, for the Fort Dupont incident and he was officially charged on Dec. 17, 2025, with Armed Carjacking, Robbery While Armed, and Kidnapping While Armed. 

Pardlow’s attorney, Patrick Nowak, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Pardlow’s decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges of Unarmed Carjacking and Possession of a Firearm During A Crime of Violence, with the other charges being dropped by prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. 

Botswana was in a whole frenzy as religious and traditional fundamentalists kept mixing religion and constitutional law as if it were harmless. It is not. One is a private matter of belief between you and God, while the other is the framework that protects and governs us all. When these two systems get fused, the result is rarely justice. It results in discrimination. 

The ongoing case brought by Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile challenging provisions of the Botswana Marriage Act has reignited a familiar debate in Botswana. Some commentators insist that marriage equality violates religious values and therefore should not be recognized by law. It is a predictable argument. It is also fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance.

Botswana is not a Christian state. It is a constitutional democracy governed by the Constitution of Botswana. That distinction matters. In a constitutional democracy, laws are interpreted in accordance with constitutional principles such as equality, dignity, protection, inclusion and the rule of law, rather than the doctrinal beliefs of any particular religion.

Religion has no place in constitutional law and democracy

The central problem with religious arguments in constitutional disputes is simple in that they divide, they other, they contest equality and they are personal. Constitutional law by contrast, must apply equally to everyone.

Botswana’s Constitution guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms under Sections 3 and 15, including protection from discrimination and the right to equal protection of the law. These provisions are not conditional on religious approval. They exist precisely to protect minorities from the preferences or prejudices of the majority.

Legal experts, such as Anneke Meerkotter, in her policy brief in Defense of Constitutional Morality, point out that constitutional rights function as a safeguard against majoritarian morality. If rights depended on whether the majority approved of a minority’s identity or relationships, they would not be rights at all. They would merely be privileges.

This principle has already been affirmed in Botswana’s jurisprudence. In the landmark decision of Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General, the High Court held that criminalizing consensual same-sex relations violated constitutional protections of liberty, dignity, privacy, and equality. This judgment noted that constitutional interpretation must evolve with society and must be guided by human dignity and equality. The court emphasized that the Constitution protects all citizens, including those whose identities, expressions or relationships may be unpopular. That ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal of Botswana in 2021, reinforcing the principle that constitutional rights cannot be restricted on grounds of moral disapproval alone. These decisions were not theological pronouncements. They were legal determinations grounded in constitutional principles.

The danger of religious majoritarianism

When religion is used to justify legal restrictions, the result is what constitutional scholars call “majoritarian moralism.” It allows the dominant religious interpretation in society to dictate the rights of everyone else. That approach is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional democracy. Botswana is religiously diverse. While Christianity is the majority faith, there are also Muslims, Hindus, traditional spiritual communities, Sikh and people who practice no religion at all. If the law were to follow the doctrines of one religious group, which interpretation would it adopt? Christianity alone contains dozens of denominations with different views on love, equality, marriage, sexuality, and gender. The moment the state begins to legislate on the basis of religious doctrine, it implicitly privileges one belief system over others. That undermines both religious freedom and constitutional equality. Ironically, keeping religion separate from constitutional law is what protects religious freedom in the first place.

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of Botswana’s governance system

The current case involving Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile is before the judiciary, where it belongs. Courts exist to interpret the Constitution and determine whether legislation complies with constitutional rights. Political and religious lobbying, as well as public outrage, must not influence that process.

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of Botswana’s governance system. According to the International Commission of Jurists, judicial independence ensures that courts can make decisions based on law and evidence rather than political or social pressure.

When governments, political, religious, or traditional actors attempt to interfere in constitutional litigation, they weaken the rule of law. Botswana has historically prided itself on having one of the most stable constitutional systems in Africa. The judiciary has played a critical role in safeguarding rights and maintaining legal certainty. The decriminalization case demonstrated this. Despite strong public debate and political sensitivity, the courts assessed the law according to constitutional principles rather than moral panic. The same standard must apply in the current marriage equality case.

This article was first published in the Botswana Gazette, Midweek Sun, and Botswana Guardian newspapers and has been edited for the Washington Blade. 

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.

My strawberry muumuu was about the ugliest thing I could have picked for our muumuu-themed movie night. 

Really, it’s just an excuse to cross-dress while the sun’s still up; these themed movie nights are concocted by a teammate of mine on the Washington Scandals, D.C.’s LGBT and mens-plus rugby club. 

The team is hosting an informational event on Saturday, March 21^st, for those interested in testing the waters on inclusive rugby. We have a lot of fun with a lot of balls, and then we head out for a drink at Kiki. 

Events like these Rugby “101s” are a blast because the joys of queer camaraderie are on full display – no experience is necessary. If you’re interested in learning more, check out our socials for more info in our bio. Back to the muumuu night, because someone will make a good point that bears repeating. 

After settling in with some pizza and homemade cream puffs, I asked my friend and teammate, Theo, on my left, what it’s been like in a rugby club. 

“Flooded with love,” he told me, him wearing a thin-striped but soft cotton muumuu.  Theo often prioritizes comfort in clothing, always dressed for the weather. Eyes as soft and fuzzy as a warm bunny, he recounted his journey here to LGBT rugby as the life of the party shifted from food to entertainment. 

Theo and I both prefer the quiet to the crowd, which is odd, given our shared passion for rugby — famously loud, infamously tough on the body.

The details are irrelevant, here; it’s Theo’s passion that caught my eye. Passion, I thought; it wasn’t particularly familiar to me, especially in sport. Profession, yes, but social pursuits?  Passion seemed so foreign to me there. 

That’s because it’s nurtured through culture, not inherited as a personality trait. This is a familiar place for much of D.C.’s LGBT culture and community; ‘chosen’ or ‘found’ family is the common phrase, but this is too simplistic, is it not?  It makes it sound like you washed ashore and stumbled effortlessly into family. It’s not like that, not in real life. 

It’s work and work requires passion to keep showing up. 

Adult friendships are hard, Mary. It’s not light and airy, like when we were kids. It’s hard enough in adulthood, and to carve a space out for men’s-plus LGBT rugby in a city literally built on compromise is an act of defiance in itself. 

Taking a chance on LGBT rugby is not for the casual observer – it’s a tough sport (but safer than football) with some big personalities. But as Theo pointed out, when I asked him about the magnetic draw between the LGBT community and rugby, that all body types are welcome in the sport; anyone can imagine themselves wearing a jersey and still fit in. 

If you are to take anything from this, dear reader, it’s that when you show up for rugby, you belong. 

The team’s hosting an informational Rugby 101 on Saturday, March 21, at Harry Thomas Rec Center, at 2 p.m. Our home match the next Saturday, March 28, is also at Harry Thomas, at 1 p.m.