ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema's political career has been dealt a near fatal blow. The ANC's national disciplinary committee for appeals confirmed all of the guilty verdicts, except for the one related to the appellants barging into a meeting of the top brass. But, in a fascinating twist, the NDCA also decided that it would throw back the case to the NDC to consider arguments in mitigation - and aggravation - before imposing a final set of penalties to go with the confirmed guilty verdicts.

So a cluster of questions now need to be answered: what does this mean for Julius Malema right now? Does his previous sentence kick in or not? Is he still the president of the Youth League? And, more widely than these questions, what are the prospects of him, or the rest of the leadership, getting reduced sentences? If all of this fails, can they appeal to the National Executive Committee or to a court of law? Let's consider each one of these steps.

First, Malema accepted being guilty in May 2010 of bringing the party into disrepute. The deal struck then was that some charges would be dropped but that he would accept a guilty verdict for bringing the party into disrepute. This related to his remarks about the crisis in Zimbabwe and showing compromising bias about the interlocutors in Zimbabwe, embarrassing Zuma. In return he agreed that his membership would be summarily suspended if he was to be found guilty of the same offence within two years. The duration of such a membership suspension, in the event of him recommitting the offence, was to be determined by the NDC. That was the burden hanging over Malema's head while the current DC process was playing out.

The NDCA's confirmation, in the latest case, that Malema is guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and sowing division - and he will remain guilty whatever new sentence he might get after mitigation arguments are considered - means that his membership is suspended immediately in order to give effect to the previous sentence. This, in turn, means that he is no longer the president of the ANC Youth League.

But here's the snag: the ANC forgot to confirm whether or not it has informed Malema that his previous sentence now kicks in. This is a loose end that will cause confusion for a day or three. They need to inform him in order to give effect to the previous suspended order.

But too many journalists, commentators, tweeps and other blogosphere troopers are overstating this oversight. For one thing, the ANC is not a court of law and it is not clear why they have a legal obligation to utter the words, "The previous sentence now kicks in", before the previous sentence takes effect. For another, there is a simple solution: the relevant office bearer in the ANC could simply inform Malema of the consequences of his current guilty verdict. My prediction would be that the ANC might clear this up sooner rather than later.

Of course, it is also important to not conflate the public's desire for a full, neat, everything-is-tied-up statement with the fact that the party only owes the appellants a full engagement in accordance with the party's constitution. And, for all we know, that might even already have been communicated without the public having been informed. At any rate, given the hype and public confusion, the party would do well to, firstly, inform Malema of the implication and, secondly, to explain this to a confused public.

Second, the chances of reduced sentences are zero. The nature of the charges for which the league leaders were found guilty are very serious, and it will take very little rhetorical footwork for an NDC which did not even think the league leaders deserved a chance to argue mitigation, to confirm their previous sentences as fair and proportional to the charges. If anything, Malema risks getting a harsher sentence since the prosecutor could argue aggravation successfully.  

In the best case scenario, the punishment will remain the same. In the worst case, the punishment will be harsher. It is therefore not obvious whether argument in mitigation is worth taking up. All that it will really achieve is keeping Malema politically on a life support system for a little while longer. It will not stave off the eventual outcome - political demise.

Finally, is there a chance that Malema might be able to petition the NEC in the event that his mitigation arguments do not improve his fate, or that of the other leaders? Again, the answer is not good if you are a Malema fan. The NEC does not have to hear a petition. In other words, they might not even grant the league leaders an ear. And, even if they did give them a chance to explain why they wish the NEC to intervene, this might not help. The NEC is not an appeal forum. They can only, in the best case scenario, ask the NDC to reconsider its verdict. But that is a mere request which the NDC can refuse.

Indeed, there is a precedent of the NDC refusing to completely grant such a request. When former ANC Chief Whip Mbulelo Goniwe was suspended and petitioned the NEC on the ground that the late Kader Asmal had biased the process with premature remarks about the case, the NEC's request that the NDC show mercy, did not result in a complete change in fortunes. The NDC need not accede to the request of the NEC. So history is not exactly in favour of the league leaders.

At any rate, the NDCA was particularly generous in explaining the importance of natural justice principles in justifying why they will allow mitigation arguments in this instance. But this means it will be hard for Malema to then persuade the NEC that the NDC, and the NDCA, did not apply themselves substantively. So the NEC route will not succeed.

Last, there is no clear basis for a legal case. It was a stroke of genius that the NDCA asserted their commitment to natural justice principles. This would help them in a court of law to defend the integrity of the process. I cannot see what the basis of a court challenge would be.

Furthermore, the political cost of a legal battle would ruin Malema. He has been one of the biggest critics of the use of courts to settle party political matters; and the ANC is keen to get rid of those members who take it court. Whether such a clause is legally acceptable or not does not matter in the end: the political cowardice of a legal move would mean that Malema would alienate himself and come back to the ANC politically weaker, even if a court challenge somehow succeeded. It would be a pyrrhic victory.  For a man who will need political allies when possible tax evasion and money laundering chargers surface, this would be a strategic misstep.

So in all logically possible scenarios, Malema comes out politically dead. It is just a matter of time. Ironically, this political death will enable one of his wishes to come true - engaging his new hero Thabo Mbeki who will await his arrival in the political afterlife.

- Mckaiser is a political analyst and associate at the Wits Center for Ethics. Follow him on twitter @eusebius 

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter