An attempt by ANCYL president Julius Malema to have his temporary suspension set aside has been dismissed, the ANC's appeal body said on Tuesday.

"The national disciplinary committee of appeal (NDCA)... found that the NDC [national disciplinary committee] did not breach the ANC constitution, the rules of natural justice and the Constitution of the Republic of SA," chairman Cyril Ramaphosa said in a statement.

Malema applied to the NDCA on April 5 to set aside the temporary suspension. He submitted his heads of argument on Sunday.

"The applicant [Malema] based his application on the grounds that the NDC breached the ANC constitution, the rules of natural justice and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa," Ramaphosa said.

Earlier this month, the NDC announced it had temporarily suspended Malema from the African National Congress to investigate charges relating to comments he made at a centenary lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand on March 30.

Malema had called President Jacob Zuma a dictator and had accused him of suppressing the ANC Youth League.

The conditions of the suspension meant Malema would not be allowed to exercise any duty as an ANC member, as president of the ANCYL, or as a member of the Limpopo provincial executive committee.

ANC spokesman Keith Khoza said on Tuesday that the party noted the NDCA's decision and welcomed it.

The ANCYL would not comment.

Malema submitted five arguments why his suspension should be lifted, the NDCA said.

He argued that the NDC breached the ANC constitution by instituting disciplinary proceedings.

"In other words, the NDC could not be referee and player at the same time," Malema argued.

However, the appeal body found this did not justify an inference of bias.

Secondly, Malema argued that the NDC was not entitled to impose conditions on him because he was not an elected representative.

"It is an established rule that suspension of a contract means that a person cannot exercise any rights or receive any benefit under the contract," Malema argued.

"Simultaneously, [he] is not obliged to perform any duties or obligations under the contract."

The NDCA said membership of the ANC was a contractual relationship between a member and the party, and the same rule applied in the case of a suspension of membership.

"It was permissible for the NDC to suspend all the normal privileges available to an ANC member... during the applicant's period of suspension," it said.

The NDCA said the NDC was entitled to impose conditions once it had decided to suspend Malema's membership.

Malema also argued that the NDC had not detailed the "exceptional circumstances" for which he was suspended.

He said he was not given the opportunity to make representations on whether he should be suspended.

The NDCA said the NDC had taken into account Malema's behaviour since November 10, when it was announced that he had been found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and sowing division in its ranks.

"The applicant's utterance at a public meeting... constituted a very serious violation of the ANC constitution.

"Steps had to be taken by the NDC to avoid any further damage to the good name and reputation of the organisation," the NDCA said.

It found that exceptional circumstances did exist and that immediately suspending Malema was in the best interests of the ANC.

In his fourth argument, Malema argued that his right to freedom of speech had been violated.

However, the NDCA said it was reasonable for the ANC to define how its members should conduct themselves.

"When the applicant joined the ANC he subjected himself to the ANC constitution and... voluntarily agreed to limit his freedom of expression apropos his relationship with the party."

The NDCA found the conditions placed on Malema during his suspension were limited to his ANC membership.

"The NDCA finds that the applicant's freedom of expression has not been infringed by the restrictions placed upon him," it said.

Finally, Malema contended that the NDC breached the country's Constitution by taking away his right as a citizen to belong to a political party.

According to the NDCA, that section of the Constitution was not applicable in the circumstances and so Malema's argument was misplaced.

"The NDCA finds that the applicant does not have a right to be a member of the ANC, both in terms of the South African Constitution and the ANC constitution," it said.