Following the shooting of alleged Sexy Boys gang boss Jerome "Donkie" Booysen this week, his brother Colin Booysen and suspected underworld kingpin Nafiz Modack are on high alert and believe that some police officers are jeopardising their safety instead of upholding their duty to protect them.It also emerged on Thursday that the man believed to have shot and wounded "Donkie" at a mall in Kuils River on Wednesday afternoon was in the Cape Town Regional Court last week when Colin Booysen appeared.ALSO READ: Jerome 'Donkie' Booysen wounded in another shooting, 1 other killedNews24 previously reported that the gunman was killed after the firearm he was using jammed, according to sources.This, they say, likely saved Booysen from being wounded further.Colin Booysen, Modack, Jacques Cronje, Ashley Fields and Carl Lakay appeared in the Cape Town Regional Court on Thursday for allegedly extorting people in an effort to take over the nightclub security business in Cape Town.As with previous appearances, a group of heavyset men dressed in all black stayed close to Modack.Unnecessary riskBruce Hendricks, for Colin Booysen, told Magistrate Byron Pedro that the gunman shot dead on Wednesday "was at this very court last week following my client".Modack's counsel, advocate Edwin Grobler, said his client surrounded himself with security personnel because a bounty or hit had been placed on him, according to information conveyed by the police.Both lawyers were concerned that their clients' safety was being jeopardised because police officers consistently took bodyguards back to the police station after court appearances to check that they were licensed security officers and that their firearms were legal.ALSO READ: Jammed gun prevented Jerome ‘Donkie’ Booysen from being further wounded - sourcesGrobler said this left Modack unguarded as he left court, while Hendricks said Booysen was further exposed when police searched his vehicle and he had to get out."It places the accused at risk unnecessarily," he said.Pedro said the police had a duty to check no crimes were being committed and private individuals had the right to hire people to keep them safe.Police, lawyers urged to meet halfway"If an individual appoints someone, they fear for their life. If they (the police) expose that person to that precise danger, then it defeats the purpose. I suggest that we find a solution to sort this out, so no one is exposed," he said.He recommended that the lawyers and police meet each other halfway by ensuring the same bodyguards were used for each appearance.Prosecutor Mervin Meningo said he had no problem if the defence confirmed it was the same bodyguards and firearms every time."With what happened at Soneike mall, police need to be wary."ALSO READ: IN-DEPTH: Legality of 'clandestine' recordings in Modack case questionedGrobler also believed Modack's safety was being jeopardised because of the bail condition that he had to inform the investigating officer whenever he left the Western Cape.While they did not have a problem with this condition, what they did take issue with was "information and proof" that the investigating officer was letting "private individuals" know his whereabouts. It is not clear who these private individuals Grobler was referring to are.They wanted an undertaking that the police would only share this information with other officials.Pedro said it was a "foregone conclusion" that the investigating officer was not supposed to do that.The case was postponed until November 12 for trial in the regional court.