HASSAN V THE STATE (2001) 15 NWLR (PT 745) P184 the appellant will not interfere with findings of the lower court. Respondent submitted that the appellant claimed he was coerced to make the statement under duress but that he did not say he was shot before making the video recording but was saying so for the first time. That several incidents mentioned to the appellant and he said he was only involved in four of the kidnapping incidents. That from the veracity test the court passed the evidence through it and at page 145 line 5 he referred to section 139 (1) of evidence act 2011 That the exception is or exemption or qualification to the burden of proving this lies on the appellant, He cited HASSAN V STATE (2001) LPELR-1358 (sc) L2-L3, OZANA UBTERHO V THE STATE (200s) LPELR-3283 (sc), SEDAMTNE V STATE (1996) 3 NWLR (PT 438) s30, AKPAN V srATE (2001) LPELR-383(SC) The respondent submitted that the court examined the video recording, Exhibit PtlPz several times over and over again, at 02;35to 02;58,05; to 05;23, 06;31 to O7;I3 and 09;34 of the video recording, the appellant consistently stated that all he did was to drive his co-defendant/accomplice and whoever it is they took hostage from one place to another. REPLY TO ARGUMENTS Appellant objected to issue 1 of respondent 's brief raised therein on ground that same was not formulated by appellant and amounted to an abuse court process and be discountenanced, as it is not formulated by the Appellant. That the Respondent neither filed a cross -appeal nor LolPage cA.AS.4oc.2o22 efiRTlFiEffi T[tL]fl fltrPY