"
Read very closely .
Per WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof that the image shows Godane has already been proven through the many, upon many reliable and reputable sources. You seem to have an issue with this, therefore the onus has now been transferred to you in order to prove to the contrary, something which you have so far failed to do. 
None of the sources you have cited have explicitly denied the authenticity of the image. They have merely used a different image of Godane. This does not support your contention that the image which is being discussed here, which is used by sources more reliable and reputable (e.g United States State Department , BBC and Reuters, among others) against the sources which you have cited, of which I have not heard of any one of them ( 'Suna times' and 'Waamo news'). 
No, there are not ""multiple images on Godane"", there are only two: The one being discussed here, and the one you consistently regurgitate. Yes, it won't make the other various portraits vanish. This still dose't help you, becuase through the above sources, it is seen which image is clearly favored by the more reliable sources. This source here,  is the only thing that you have showed me which highlights that the image may not be Godane. I bet you're smiling and clapping your hands right now that through this magical source you have proven the image is not Godane, right? WRONG. This source is meager. It is unreliable as it is questionable. The article is a blog, unworthy of proper accreditation, and it's riddled with spelling errors and grammatical errors, e.g (""Hammami is still advocating for Robow’s troopss."") Are you kidding me? The author can't even spell, and you're taking this blog over acclaimed sources such as Reuters or the U.S State Department. Wow is all I can say. Furthermore, the blog doesn't identity which picture is incorrect (If indeed any image is incorrect, the author never cites his source), and the article was published over a year before those media sources cited above circulated the image being discussed here. Moreover, even if the images were used prior, it still doesn't help, as the author hasn't established where he got his information from concerning this supposed 'incorrect' image of Godane. Again, you're going to have to do more digging than that in order to prove your point.
The basis that 'foreign media agencies' have no credibility on reporting in areas where local media is present is just well, stupid. By that logic, any material/information coming from any part of the world which is not from the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe already excludes many of those sources. This geographical argument is meaningless. Ok then, how about I remove all references to BBC,Reuters, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, the National Counterterrorism Center (Oh look, they use the image as well! ) and many, many more sources just becuase they are reporting from places where they are not 'based'? Hmm? Seems reasonable logical to me, if we were to follow your logic. What you are forgetting is that each news agency, no matter if its western gets its information from local sources from the places where they are covering a story or reporting from, whether that's Somalia or Timbuktu. This source for example from BBC  is from the BBC African branch, BBC Africa. They will have reporters, correspondents, sources, all across Africa. And this is only one media source. The Somalian media are going to be no more accurate than BBC Africa , as they will not have the extensive resources that the BBC have, even in Somalia but also elsewhere.
And finally, this. ""the various portraits can perhaps go in the body as StantheMan87 suggested "" -. So now you're willing to compromise? Ahh, I see! So when you find yourself in between an undeniable rock and a hard place when it comes to your POV, you finally are willing to take a compromise that was offered to you by , which you rejected? ""We can't do that"" -.  was way to conciliatory towards you by even offering you a choice: ""What you believe should happen to the image is now up to you."" - . I'm afraid that I'm not as conciliatory,